New votethingy suggestion

New vote cards can have a "high stakes" effect Example: Allocate 5 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. If this referendum is unsuccessful, burn two pool (or burn 1 blood on each of your vamps, or something like that). Something for that politics-heavy expansion set I´ve been suggesting for ages. What do you think?

<as...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1170507405.8...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... New vote cards can have a "high stakes" effect Example: Allocate 5 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. If this referendum is unsuccessful, burn two pool (or burn 1 blood on each of your vamps, or something like that). What do you think? nope. A cost shouldn't be as easily circumvented as 'play with Voter Cap, which you will probably be doing anyway'

On 3 Feb, 14:27, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > <a...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:1170507405.8...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] OK, so a higher drawback then. It was just an example dammit.

[ quoted text not captured ] How does Voter Cap get played on an unsuccessful referendum? Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. Voter Cap itself may be the problem. It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect with pool gain to boot. Other comparable effects: Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, I think we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what you were doing anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even when damage is prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never gives pool, and it's harder to get the same range of gain with damage compared to vote margins, and vote margins don't incur the same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what your deck does" is typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for vote decks than for combat decks). Thoughts?

In article <x%1xh.6667$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, I > think > we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what you were doing > anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even when damage is > prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never gives pool, and it's > harder to get the same range of gain with damage compared to vote margins, > and > vote margins don't incur the same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what > your deck does" is typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for > vote > decks than for combat decks). > > Thoughts? You might very well be on to something. But then, we have recently established that I have a crack addled mind, so take that for what it is worth :-) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

On Feb 3, 8:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with > costs. Basically true, if the cost is blood or pool. Less true if the cost were neither. Here are some examples of alternate costs to consider: - Only usable as your first non-manatory action of this turn" (usability restriction) - Your turns ends immediately at the (successful) conclusion of this referendum (no discard phase, and maybe no more actions depending on timing) - Only usable as your first non-manatory action of this turn. EFFECT. Your turns (or minion phase) ends immediately at the (successful) conclusion of this referendum" (restriction, loss of actions and discard) - Only usable by a vampire of capacity greater than 3. EFFECT. This vampire is burned if this referendum is successful" Alternately, I don't recall pursuing the analog of bleed modifiers for voting yet. - No (further) action modifiers may be played during this action. Just some food for thought. > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. >From the tenor of your following comments, I infer that you may believe Voter Cap is problematic. I wish to offer a different perspective. Yes, Voter Cap is quite good. In fact, I would suggest that VC is often more worthwhile then the vote itself. Why? Because most vote effects are relatively weak for the effort involved. That's why all we typically see at the upper level of play are KRC, PTO and once-per-game votes - they MAY be worth the overhead of getting them to work (especially in multi-act or Majesty decks). That seems to be the thrust of the initial post - getting rid of one- dimensional voting, though I understand how you can be concerned about creating "very good" votes with the presence of Voter Cap (pun intended) in the game. Perhaps if those new (powerful) votes employed the restrictions offered above, a balance might be reached without "jumping through hoops" - a la Eldest Command Undeath. Personally, I believe that Voter Cap's strength is well-balanced by how difficult it usually is to optimally use. Consider: - You must be playing PRE (OK, that's not a stretch in real voting decks) - You must have a vote, or a table vote, to call (KRC, PTO or a once- per-game vote in tournaments) - You must not be blocked by 2 people (usually requires some type of action modifier) - You must pass the vote (either with lots of big titles minions, significant overhead in making titles, in-hand action modifiers or excellent interpersonal skill + intelligent other players) - You then hope to have the Voter Cap in hand - You hope that none of this stuff can be Delayed, Eyed or DI'ed Yes, you can get by with some missing pieces. But if those missing bits cause even one link in the chain to fail, handjam will quickly lead to your demise. If you're multi-acting (a good reason to want blood recursion), you now have another dimension of complexity to layer in. I suppose you can call Rumors of Gehenna, name all the voters and potential blockers and hope they're silly enough to all vote for it allowing you to VC. Good tables pass your vote by 1 when they see the voter has [PRE]. If you want big numbers with VS, you must dependably generate large vote numbers yourself. To that end, I believe that Awe is more problematic than Voter Cap, given their synergy. > Other comparable effects: > Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. Taste of Vitae enables most of its deck archtypes to work. With the exception of ranged combat decks, you can't count on a lot of big- bolus pool gain (Minion Tap) from it. With the exception of Awe- driven decks, Voter Cap doesn't stricty enable its deck archetype. They both seem really great, but with greatly different intents to me. - many ToV = my minions can keep fighting, as my deck requires. - many VC = I can gain enough pool to not carry a sizable body of Wakes and bleed bounce, thereby allowing me to fit votes + stealth + vote mods + Voter Cap in my deck. > Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. These don't even come close - they require an action - not simply happening as a by-product of your deck's primary focus. > Thoughts? Pretty clear..... - I would like to see more tournament worthy votes, even if they offer signiciant non-blood, non-pool costs - Voter Cap is fine - any deck that carries several must become more focused on voting to use it well, thereby sacrificing something else. I look forward to a spirited debate. Darby

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:38:05 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA > cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the > corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is > suspect due to the option of alternating referendums between the > costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. While I'm not a big fan of Political decks, and I do agree they can indeed be overwhealming if given room to build up, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion. > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, > unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in > its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect > with pool gain to boot. > > Other comparable effects: > Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. > Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. > Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no > pool. I'd probably also mention Renewed Vigor, as that is also fairly repeatable, and is mainly restricted by the scarce bloodline discipline required to pull it off. > The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, > I think we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what > you were doing anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even > when damage is prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never > gives pool, and it's harder to get the same range of gain with damage > compared to vote margins, and vote margins don't incur the same risks as > combat (and, arguably, "doing what your deck does" is typically stronger > in the "oust your prey" category for vote decks than for combat decks). > > Thoughts? I think voting is supposed to be harder than combat. Combat: you do a (D) action, and then whack the opposing minion with almost no possibility of interference from the other players (barring mostly D.I., which is IMHO a rather problematic card I wouldn't like to build any argument on). If you chose the right target - and chances are, at least one of the players whose whacking is beneficial to your game are susceptible - you can gain blood pretty easily. With politics, you have 4 potential adversaries, who - if playing smartly - will make sure your Voter Captivation doesn't net you much more than a Life in the City would. Sure, Voter Cap does make it pretty hard to build a cost onto Political cards, which might be a real pain from a designer point of view, so I guess that angle does merit some consideration. But outside of this I'm unconvinced that Voter is the issue, and not, for example, Minion Tap, Anthelios, ease of getting powerful vampires with a gazillion votes, or any other aspect of the game. Anyway, that's my 20 cents. From a player point of view I'm far more concerned by the continuous strengthening of passive play (e.g. walls) than by any other phenomenon. A Wall has access to bloat options similar in power level to Tap+Cap, except it needs more cards for the setup, but then needs no cards to operate. It also arguably bloats simply by doing its game. But I digress... -- Regards, Daneel

In message <x%1xh.6667$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA >cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the >corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. It may be helpful to separate two different things here: 1) High Stakes cards, with punishments 2) Straight-forward higher costs. (Obviously, the two can mingle - a higher cost card that has a punishment.) There are two ways of approaching this, that can potentially apply to both situations. 1) Textual acrobatics. This is not inherently a bad thing, and could potentially be simplified to something like "The acting minion cannot play action modifiers on this referendum" or "Action modifiers cost the acting minion two additional blood" or something - not perfect, but would cause problems for a Voter Cap heavy deck. Or more targetedly "Action modifiers requiring Presence cannot be played on this action." 2) Non-pool costs. Note that I am not suggesting the following examples are super-balanced, but I'm just trying out mechanics. (In some ways, these are verbal acrobatics, but they're way less direct.) For example: Hostage Negotiation Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote Requires a ready vampire with a Bomb. Choose a ready Methuselah. If this referendum is successful, that Methuselah takes 3 pool damage. If they control a ready mortal, they take 4 pool damage instead. If not, this vampire takes 5 damage and goes to torpor. Burn the bomb at the end of this action, regardless of how it ends. So the VC can mitigate some of it (get blood back), but you need a bomb, you need a get out of torpor if it fails, and so on. Character Assassination Political action, 1 stealth, 1 vote Requires a ready titled vampire Choose a ready minion. If this referendum is successful, put this card on the chosen with X Character counters, where X is the number of votes this acting vampire's title is worth (or 1 if they are a Priscus). If the referendum is not successful, put this card on the acting vampire with twice as many counters. If the vampire with this card bleeds for more than 2, the bleed is capped at 2 (ignore the excess). If the vampire with this card casts more than 1 vote, they are capped at 1 vote. Remove a Character counter during your untap phase, and burn the card when it has zero counters. VC doesn't really help here at all. Census Political action, 1 stealth, 1 vote Unique If this action is successful, do not conduct a referendum. Put this card in play and choose two clans. During your next minion phase, if you control this acting vampire and he is ready, he must take an action to call a referendum. If that action is successful, conduct a referendum; the terms of the referendum are that you gain pool equal to the number of ready minions in the game for the two chosen clans. (This second referendum cannot be called in any other way; this card remains in play and does not burn, but contributes one vote to this second referendum.) Two actions, unique, can get rid of the vampire in between time (as was attempted with RtoI, for example), blah blah. Bringing Down The House Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote You must choose a ready location you control when announcing this action. If that location was a piece of equipment, it must be on this acting vampire. Choose a ready Methuselah. If this referendum passes, each of that Methuselah's ready minions takes 1 damage. If this referendum passes by more than 5 votes, each of that Methuselah's ready minions takes 2 damage instead. If any minions leave the ready region because of this, gain a pool. Burn the location you chose at the end of this action. VC will let you pay for one, but extra master phases or equip actions, or whatever. Defend Thy Own Kinsmen By Smiting Others (Please Turn Over) Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote Requires a ready Kholo, or a vampire with a title worth at least 3 votes. Choose a ready vampire with a capacity less than 5 or an ally with a cost less than 4. If this referendum is successful, burn the chosen minion and, after the action has finished, burn all the blood on this vampire. If the referendum is not successful, remove the acting vampire from the game. Anti-VC verbal acrobatics (the vampire empties are VC would be played), and a severe punishment clause. The All-Night Session Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote Some devestating referendum ability. Before the referendum is conducted, put this card on the acting vampire. The vampire with this card does not untap. If an effect would untap this vampire, the untap part of the effect is ignored. Burn this card at the start of your next minion phase. No Freak Drive, can't trivially act next turn - Rutor's Hand or Precognizant Mobility or whatever. Or even Metro Underground! Anything that makes Metro Underground a borderline consideration can't be all bad... (Standard disclaimers: All my own work, White Wolf are welcome to use, etc.) > Even that is suspect due to the option of alternating referendums >between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. With an indirect cost, I don't think that would be significantly problematic. Yes, VC would mean you could pay more for Bombs or locations, but you still need them in hand to equip, and so on. >Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > >It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, >unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in >its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect >with pool gain to boot. It's unique in that regard, but uniqueness alone would not be a reason to act alone. >Other comparable effects: >Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. >Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. >Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. >Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. >Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. Festivo dello Estinto: potentially huge amounts of blood, once per game, multiple actions, available to other Methuselahs. You also have to factor in that Fifth, Entrenching and Concert Tour do not require a successful referendum (which can be interrupted with e.g. Delaying Tactics). >The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful >card, I think we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than >"what you were doing anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be >played even when damage is prevented or not done at all or whatever), >but it never gives pool, and it's harder to get the same range of gain >with damage compared to vote margins, and vote margins don't incur the >same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what your deck does" is >typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for vote decks than >for combat decks). Sort of. But Taste is also disciplineless where - perhaps? - the comparison is supposed to be Bribes. Also, Taste is usable in almost every combat deck, whereas Voter Captivation is only usable in PRE decks - which is a lot of vote decks, but the bigger problem is the synergy Presence has with vote push. Awe was designed after Voter Captivation by people who didn't know what they were doing, which makes one of the most powerful vote push packages in the game. Aside from Theft decks and Ally combat, pretty much every combat deck in the game can (and very possibly should) use Taste - whereas there are a wide range of non-Presence vote decks, which do okay. One option might be a possible Event that fiddled with politics, or some other hoser that was disproportionately heavy on Presence. >Thoughts? I'm not sure I'd like to see Voter Captivation undermined by a rewrite. It's very good, but I don't think it's too good. That is, I'd probably write it differently if I were writing it now - perhaps put it in play with those counters, and get everything at the start of your untap phase (so that a combat deck has an easier time hitting a mostly empty vampire etc., and if the VC were *on* the vampire, it could stop everything with a burn...). But I'm not sure it's a place where errata would be appropriate. I'd rather see alternative costs, and potential extra cards for non-Presence vote strategies so that Presence isn't *quite* so far ahead of everything else. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1PjCZoTB...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >Or even Metro Underground! Anything that makes Metro Underground a >borderline consideration can't be all bad... Wait. I'm on drugs. Move along. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with > costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual > acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option > of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. This strikes me as a fairly reasonable conclusion given the overall power level of the blood/pool gain in combination with the successful use of votes. The claim that political actions are generally lower in power level than their difficulty justifies, and that Voter Captivation is necessary to balance this, is absurd in my view. While bleeding may have a higher payoff per action, it too is susceptible to risks including aggressive bounce and Archon Investigation. Votes also allow flexibility due to cards like Disputed Territory, Banishment, Consanguineous Boon, and others. Combat is well behind both, much to my continual chagrin. I'd also like to suggest that a possible result of in some way nerfing Voter Cap would be a reduction in game-crippling table talk in fairly common tournament situations. The whole process of trying to let votes pass by the minimum amount, and the mental arithmetic involved in figuring out how much a vote is passing by (as opposed to simply is it passing or not) can stall the game, and I'd expect fewer time outs if Voter Cap were either less frequently played or somehow altered. One possible proposal to fix both problems would be to assign a fixed number to the blood/pool gain on Voter Cap. Such a solution would reduce the time spent handling referdenda, and would curtail the most abusive uses of Tap n Cap without completely nerfing the card, or PRE vote in general. For example: Voter Captivation action modifier, pre Only usable when a referndum called by the acting vampire is passing. pre: The acting vampire gains 2 blood. PRE: The acting vampires 3 blood, up to 2 of which you may move to your pool. Comments?

On 3 Feb, 16:38, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > <a...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht [ quoted text not captured ] I do not think the strenght of Voter Cap should prevent you from making fun, balanced political action-cards. Is it really so now?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 LSJ wrote: > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA > cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the > corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is > suspect due to the option of alternating referendums between the > costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > Thoughts? ...We've all known that to be true since Sabbat was the "latest" set? Voter Captivation was one of the first cards I spent a great deal of effort sorting through boxes, trading, etc., for. It was not accidental, and it is one of the primary reasons that vote decks are distinguished into two types: Presence-based and non-Presence based. Put another way: How good a card would Awe be without VC? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFxPqKtQZlu3o7QpERAm9yAKCtg+4u7J222M4G9FoFl46quXcHAQCg188q Ogyu7B0g/C/wDFQFtlqIioc= =FrRk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:x%1xh.6667$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards > with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of > textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due > to the option of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the > Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, > unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in > its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect > with pool gain to boot. <<Snippage>> > Thoughts? Personally I would cry few tears if voter Captivation either had the pool gain stripped off or had the blood gain limited in some way. Locally voter captivation is the reason people play vote decks, for the oh so lovely pool gain. I suspect it is the reason no one ever plays with consang boon anymore. Why not do some other vote and get your pool from this convenient action modifier instead. (But really is there anything funnier than having a fat vampire spend all his blood on Awe only to have his voter cap DI'd or the vote failed by some other means? John P.

I'd like to just see clan specific vote cards. Start with Nosferatu, something like: Tales from the Crypt +1 stealth political action Requires: Nosferatu Allocate 3 points among any number of methusalehs. If successful, the chosen Methuselahs may (or must?) draw the allocated number of crypt cards (no cost is paid). Gangrel Consensus Requires: Gangrel (duh!) +1 stealth political action Choose a sect. If this referendum is successful, all Gangrel in play must change to that sect or burn 1 blood. Put this card in play. Any Gangrel entering play may choose to change their sect to the chosen sect. If the chosen sect was independent, any untapped ready independent Gangrel may burn 1 blood to become Anarch when this referendum passes. Votes by non-gangrel minions and effects which do not require Gangrel each count for 1 less vote in this referendum. Changing the Wheels Requires: Malkavian +1 stealth political action If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. When another methusaleh calls a referendum with terms, you may burn this card to set the terms of the referendum and gain 3 votes in that referendum. Only one Changing the Wheels can be used this way in a game. [I like this restriction over 'one played per game' because it is slightly more useable and cycleable if you then choose to put 2 of them in your deck ] Apportioning an Old One Requires: Tremere antitribu +1 stealth political action If this referendum is successful, the acting vampire gains two blood and every Methuselah may search his or her library for a Master: Discipline card and place it on a vampire the same age or younger than the acting vampire. I'd like to hear other ideas for these clans and more. Staying topical, start with the clans who don't have PRE as a common discipline. Important voty Lasombra have pre, and so do some Assamites and Tscimisce, so think about that when coming up with card costings if any are needed in addition to the clan requirement. I think the Ventrue and (!)Tor should get boring votes like: If successful, put this card in play, you may tap it when it is ( is not) your turn to gain 1 vote. And as far as Voter Cap, I would hate to see it altered, as I consider it one of the fundamental cards of the game (although I hardly ever build decks with it, honestly). If it wasn't around, I'd build even fewer political decks. And a word on some of the suggestions that have come up in this thread, I certainly like some of the ideas in the suggested cards. I would just put this out there to consider though: especially powerful effects should be balanced with costs and opportunity restrictions, but wildly powerful cards with very high costs/play restrictions arent especially fun. (Not fun to be so difficult to play, and not fun to be completely hosed by one play even if it was difficult to pull off). Going too far in that direction just makes the game erratic and unpredictable rather than Strategic. For instance, the initial card suggested - allocate 5 points KRC style - is probably just overpowered no matter what it costs. And the game doesn't really need more KRC/ConAg style effects. Well to be more precise, there is no margin between when that kind of card is overpowered and when the cost to play it is so high it makes it wallpaper.

In article <1170534950.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I do not think the strenght of Voter Cap should prevent you from > making fun, balanced political action-cards. Is it really so now? In a design sense, making Political Actions cost blood or pool is mostly irrelevant, because of Voter Cap--the most effective vote decks are already using Presence (for Bewitching, Awe, and, ya know, Voter Cap), so if a vote is made to cost a blood or two blood or a pool or whatever, that cost is virtually a non issue--you call the vote, you push the vote through however is necessary, and then Voter Cap to get the blood and/or pool you spent back. The result is that presumably, when designing a political action card, if they want it to have a cost in blood or pool, they either need to: A) Make the cost absurdly high (like, say, a minimum of 3 pool, so that the Voter Cap doesn't just make it a wash, in which case the card is likely to be completely unplayable in non Presence based vote decks). B) Use ad-hoc "you can't use Voter Cap" on this vote wording, like on Eldest Command Undeath. Voter Cap also makes cards like Awe much more powerful than likely necessary--Awe is already powerful, in that it can allow you to push through pretty much any vote you want against pretty much any reasonable opposition. The cost of this is supposed to be that it costs a lot of blood. But 'cause every blood you spend gets you 2 votes (at PRE), you can spend all your blood for a ton of votes, and Voter Cap it all back and then some. Yeah, once and a while, someone will DI the voter cap, or Delaying Tactics the cote after all the blood is spent, but most of the time, Voter Cap just makes Awe a total no brainer. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 3, 9:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > > Thoughts? Voter cap is certainly overpowered. But is the question as to whether or not there should be errata or MRP changes to Voter Cap? That might be a little extreme, as Voter Cap has been around since day one, and I don't recall any changes ever being considered to it before. Granted, Majesty and Form of Mist were changed fairly recently... maybe they were considered more egregious? If you're considering changing Voter Cap, I wouldn't want it be too extreme. Nothing like Solving the Misdirection Equation again, I don't think. I do kind of like the idea of "if the vote passes gain 2 blood, etc...", but that would definitely but a crimp into some Presence vote decks.

On Feb 4, 1:03 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1170534950.197763.244...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of action...

In article <1170603563.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of > action... I'm pretty certain you can (although I certainly could be wrong)--DT is played "during a referendum", and casting votes during a referendum don't seem to be a cut and dry sorta thing--you can cast some votes, see what happens, cast some more votes, see what happens, and then someone can, after it seems that the vote is going in a way that you don't like, play Delaying Tactics to foil it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-A73062.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <1170603563.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > "Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of >> action... > > I'm pretty certain you can (although I certainly could be wrong)--DT is > played "during a referendum", and casting votes during a referendum > don't seem to be a cut and dry sorta thing--you can cast some votes, see > what happens, cast some more votes, see what happens, and then someone > can, after it seems that the vote is going in a way that you don't like, > play Delaying Tactics to foil it. > Yep. The best time to play DT is just after Arika with 4 blood plays Awe with X=4. :) - Pat

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1170603563.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > "Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of >> action... > > I'm pretty certain you can (although I certainly could be wrong)--DT is Game show time! > played "during a referendum", and casting votes during a referendum > don't seem to be a cut and dry sorta thing--you can cast some votes, see > what happens, cast some more votes, see what happens, and then someone > can, after it seems that the vote is going in a way that you don't like, > play Delaying Tactics to foil it. Correct.

> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with > costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual > acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option > of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > Thoughts? Voter Cap is akin to these theoretical cards: Bleeder Cap Action Mod Only usable when a bleed is successful. [dom] The acting vampire gains blood equal to the amount of Pool lost from the bleed. [DOM] As above, and up to of the blood gained may be taken to your pool. Beater Cap Combat [pot] Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. This vampire gains an amount of blood equal to the amount lost by the opposing vampire to damage during this round of combat. A vampire may play only one Beater Cap each round. [POT] As above, but up to two of the blood gained may be taken to your pool. With Voter Cap, all of these cards provide refill and pool gain to their respective strategies within a discipline that provides free acceleration of that strategy. I don't think anybody would like to see Bleeder Cap printed, but I'd guess there would be some cheering for Beater Cap, followed by some groaning as to how it should have been a QUI card. Voter cap makes a poli-act an action to: 1.) Gain two pool 2.) Fill your vampire 3.) generate one presumably desired effect from among many, many, possibilities. It IS too powerful, but it still doesn't out perform hyper-bleed, so it has to stay. I think the superior should lose the "As above" stipulation, and simply provide refill at basic OR Pool gain at Superior. Anyone got change for a Nickel?

On 4 Feb, 00:03, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1170534950.197763.244...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > > A) Make the cost absurdly high (like, say, a minimum of 3 pool, so that > the Voter Cap doesn't just make it a wash, in which case the card is > likely to be completely unplayable in non Presence based vote decks). Or you could make the "cost" something else than blood or pool. Also, I ´m not sure I agree that high blood/pool cost don´t matter - with a high cost, Vote cap is NEEDED to play the card (like it is NEEDED to play Awe). > B) Use ad-hoc "you can't use Voter Cap" on this vote wording, like on > Eldest Command Undeath. Actually I have nothing against this. > Voter Cap also makes cards like Awe much more powerful than likely > necessary--Awe is already powerful, in that it can allow you to push > through pretty much any vote you want against pretty much any reasonable > opposition. The cost of this is supposed to be that it costs a lot of > blood. But 'cause every blood you spend gets you 2 votes (at PRE), you > can spend all your blood for a ton of votes, and Voter Cap it all back > and then some. Yeah, once and a while, someone will DI the voter cap, or > Delaying Tactics the cote after all the blood is spent, but most of the > time, Voter Cap just makes Awe a total no brainer. I think Awe sucks. For those reasons you mention (DI, DT etc.). BO is usually "enough" good in my experience.

In article <1170612020.4...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Or you could make the "cost" something else than blood or pool. Also, I > 惴 not sure I agree that high blood/pool cost don愒 matter - with a > high cost, Vote cap is NEEDED to play the card (like it is NEEDED to > play Awe). You could make the cost something other than blood/pool, but that is a more difficult thing to balance (and fit on the card...) than simply giving it a blood/pool cost. Due to Voter Cap, the ability to balance out a PA card with a blood/pool cost (which is a simple and obvious way to balance most cards) is mostly taken out of the realm of possibilities. Which is a problem, in a design sense. > Actually I have nothing against this. Sure. But it is kind of klunky--if there is a card out there that makes it so whenever you design something, you have to write "This card circumvents the effect of that other card" on it, something is probably amiss. > I think Awe sucks. For those reasons you mention (DI, DT etc.). BO is > usually "enough" good in my experience. Uhh, ok? I'll gladly take all those Awes you have cluttering up your collection. Drop me an e-mail, and I'm sure we can invent a deal... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <W7pxh.1567$gj4...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Game show time! Man. We need a theme song now... > Correct. Yaa! I'm not on crack! [ quoted text not captured ]

> Man. We need a theme song now... > > > Correct. > > Yaa! I'm not on crack! I do Cocaaaaaaaainnne!

On Feb 3, 1:05 pm, "CthuluKitty" <vtanarch...@riseup.net> wrote: > > For example: > Voter Captivation > action modifier, pre > Only usable when a referndum called by the acting vampire is passing. > pre: The acting vampire gains 2 blood. > PRE: The acting vampires 3 blood, up to 2 of which you may move to > your pool. > > Comments? This is much better than my thought to just cap the amount gained. It is a big nerf to Voter Cap, so I am somewhat concerned about this change. I was thinking maybe, 2/4 gain, but is gaining 4 for a vote that passes by 1 too much? It would definately speed up vote polling, since it now only matters if the votes passes, not by how much. It bugs me when someone casts all their votes in favor when the referendum can pass without those votes, enabling a larger Voter Cap, just because they are a nice person. Its hard to explain to them how they are making a poor play when they are just trying to be nice (sometimes they actually make it pass by more for some sort of deal or favor, which is fine to do). I'd appreciate if that became a non- issue, but that alone does not warrant a card text change. Later, ~Rehlow

On Feb 3, 12:52 pm, "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 8:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with > > costs. I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to balancing the cost of combat cards. > Personally, I believe that Voter Cap's strength is well-balanced by > how difficult it usually is to optimally use. Agreed. Voter Cap is yet another moving part in a deck type that already has a lot of factors that can go wrong for it. It's strong, but not overwhelmingly so relative to its opportunity cost. > - I would like to see more tournament worthy votes, even if they offer > signiciant non-blood, non-pool costs > - Voter Cap is fine - any deck that carries several must become more > focused on voting to use it well, thereby sacrificing something else. > Agreed. I do think the vote aspect of V:tes is one of the more stagnant parts of the game. Vote decks and technology, and the vote meta-game hasn't changed much since Ancient Hearts. Most vote decks we see today could have been built 10 years ago. This is a area that could use a shake-up and some designer love. Part of the problem is the Jyhad votes (KRC, Con Agg, Con Boon, Parity Shift) are so strong that anything stronger would be broken. And anything weaker is DOA. (Old combat cards -- .44 Magnum, Torn Signpost, Carrion Crows have similar dominance in the combat space). Fuctional vote decks are so space intensive that casual vote and toolbox vote don't really work. The votes must be the main offensive weapon. Votes that don't lead to the ousting of your prey don't tend to be worth the effort. Options for changing the vote game dynamic: Weaken older cards (KRC - divide 3 point points... ) Create more non-Presence voter-cap like effects, and sucesssful vote rewards Create cards that invite use because they are flexible or overcome typical Vote-deck problems (Votes with +2 stealth, or worth 2-3 votes) Or action mods that provide stealth and/or votes (or allow muliple Political Cards with a single action?). -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank wrote: > On Feb 3, 12:52 pm, "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 3, 8:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with >>> costs. > > I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to > balancing the cost of combat cards. That would be because of the difference in the two. Increasing the cost of combat cards makes it less likely that the combatant will meet the restrictions on Taste. Increasing the cost of a PA doesn't have that effect, since the cost of the PA is mostly unrelated to the prospects of passing the referendum. > Agreed. I do think the vote aspect of V:tes is one of the more > stagnant parts of the game. Vote decks and technology, and the vote > meta-game hasn't changed much since Ancient Hearts. Most vote decks we > see today could have been built 10 years ago. This is a area that > could use a shake-up and some designer love. Perhaps because the design is hampered by the existence of Voter Cap. > Part of the problem is the Jyhad votes (KRC, Con Agg, Con Boon, Parity > Shift) are so strong that anything stronger would be broken. And > anything weaker is DOA. With Voter Cap as-is, perhaps. With a more sedate Voter Cap, it is easier to make viable alternatives that don't represent overall escalation over the PAs you cite (increased cost for increased effect). > (Old combat cards -- .44 Magnum, Torn Signpost, Carrion Crows have > similar dominance in the combat space). The brokeness of Torn Signpost is left for another thread... > Fuctional vote decks are so space intensive that casual vote and > toolbox vote don't really work. The votes must be the main offensive > weapon. Votes that don't lead to the ousting of your prey don't tend > to be worth the effort. > > Options for changing the vote game dynamic: > > Weaken older cards (KRC - divide 3 point points... ) > Create more non-Presence voter-cap like effects, and sucesssful vote > rewards > Create cards that invite use because they are flexible or overcome > typical Vote-deck problems (Votes with +2 stealth, or worth 2-3 votes) > Or action mods that provide stealth and/or votes (or allow muliple > Political Cards with a single action?). Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.

In article <1170697995.5...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to > balancing the cost of combat cards. Keep in mind that Taste *has* been nerfed in recent history (only one per round, only at the end of the round, neither of which used to be the case--you used to be able to strike, Taste, gain some blood, Blur, strike, Taste, gain some blood, strike again, Taste a third time if you really wanted to). It seems likely that Taste was downpowered specifically for this reason. > Agreed. Voter Cap is yet another moving part in a deck type that > already has a lot of factors that can go wrong for it. It's strong, > but not overwhelmingly so relative to its opportunity cost. Well, it's opportunity cost is "Play your deck". Yeah, once and a while, someone will DI the Voter Cap you were relying on to refill your vampire after a greedy Awe or something, but most of the time, if your deck is going (i.e. you get to call and pass votes, even if once and a while, you get blocked or voted down), the opportunity cost of Voter Cap is pretty insignificant. This being said, I don't think that Voter Cap needs a tremendous nerf or anything. Maybe limit the blood/pool gain (like was done with 5th Tradition) to a fixed number (maybe at inferior, gain 2 blood and at superior, gain 2 blood and 2 pool or something). Or limit the number that can be played per turn (only 1 Voter Cap per turn or something). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. > > So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum). [pre] Gain 2 blood. [PRE] Gain 2 pool. Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. [pre] Gain 2 blood. [PRE] Gain 2 pool. The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently fizzles on.

On Feb 5, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. > > > So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? > > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the > number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. > [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. Perhaps it could be "maximum 4" at both levels, but allow up to 2 to move to your pool at superior (to suggest a less drastic change). > Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum). > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. I don't like the idea of making it jam a player's hand more often (by requiring the vote to pass by 2 instead of just one) _in addition_ to nerfing the card. > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently fizzles on. I'd support this just to reduce the number of times one of my "allies" miscalculates the amount by which I can vote-push and throws all his votes against a referendum that we both want to succeed, resulting in both no successful referendum and no Cap. It also has the benefit of increasing the card's usability in exchange for a reduction in its effectiveness, which may make the change easier for players to swallow overall. witness1 -believe the lie.

witness1 wrote: > On Feb 5, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, >>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. >>> So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? >> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. >> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the >> number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. >> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. > > Perhaps it could be "maximum 4" at both levels, but allow up to 2 to > move to your pool at superior (to suggest a less drastic change). Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential". >> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum). >> [pre] Gain 2 blood. >> [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > I don't like the idea of making it jam a player's hand more often (by > requiring the vote to pass by 2 instead of just one) _in addition_ to > nerfing the card. Free pool is not generally an effect to be placed in the "nerfed" column.

In article <h5Lxh.52344$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the > number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. > [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. Not bad, but probably uses too many words for what could be a simple card (not that the words are used to a bad effect, but I suspect that one of the following two is likely the way to go). > Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the > referendum). > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. Good. But again, the next one is probably best. > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. I think this is probably the best option. Doesn't use a lot of words. Nice, simple card. Doesn't encourage that horrible phase in every referendum that is the "make sure the vote passes by as few votes as possible to foil a Voter Cap, even if you are my pal and I want the vote to pass" phase. Does open up the card, as noted, to auto pass votes (which is a minor boon for opportunity cost to partially balance the overall nerf). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 5, 2:25 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > witness1 wrote: > > On Feb 5, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Peter D Bakija wrote: > >>> In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > >>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>>> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. > >>> So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? > >> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > >> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the > >> number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. > >> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. > > > Perhaps it could be "maximum 4" at both levels, but allow up to 2 to > > move to your pool at superior (to suggest a less drastic change). > > Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential". Possibly. I was more thinking about VC as "that card that fills up your 10-cap and gives you 2 pool" and reducing the effect by about the same amount as Fifth Tradition was eventually reduced (i.e. from X down to 4). Except that even my suggestion could still be viewed as a more drastic change than 5th tradition, since VC as it exists can gain X blood plus 2 pool, instead of 4 total, divided among the two. In any event, I'm not (yet) trying to argue that one suggestion or the other is inherently "better" for whatever purposes. I'm merely noting that the proposition you gave is a pretty drastic change for a card that's been pretty much unchanged since Jyhad. If the game's done well with the card as it exists now, perhaps less drastic changes can be considered. > >> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum). > >> [pre] Gain 2 blood. > >> [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > > I don't like the idea of making it jam a player's hand more often (by > > requiring the vote to pass by 2 instead of just one) _in addition_ to > > nerfing the card. > > Free pool is not generally an effect to be placed in the "nerfed" column. It was previously able to generate a huge amount blood and 2 pool. Now it's one or the other, limited to 2 total. I suppose some of the connotations of the word "nerf" may be inappropriate here; I simply meant that the general effect of the card seems to be lessened overall by the change. As I mentioned above, the game seems to have survived just fine with VC as it is now, so I like the last version, which has much less of an effect in optimum conditions, but improves the card in the less optimal cases. To me, that makes it seem approximately balanced with the current effect of VC, while reducing the amount of bookkeeping and discussion that results from current VC. In fewer words: w1nn3r. witness1 -believe the lie

On Feb 5, 1:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1170697995.545888.271...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to > > balancing the cost of combat cards. > > Keep in mind that Taste *has* been nerfed in recent history (only one > per round, only at the end of the round, neither of which used> Wasn't that more a clarity change (get rid of the post-strike "Taste" phase. Make sure you can't tasted the same damage 3 times etc...)? The power change was relatively minor - especially compared to the proposed Voter Cap changes. > if your deck is > going (i.e. you get to call and pass votes, even if once and a while, > you get blocked or voted down), the opportunity cost of Voter Cap is > pretty insignificant. > If you assume the opportunity cost has already been met, then yes, its pretty insignificant at that point. My Voter Cap inner monologue tends to something like: There's a Voter Cap. Good. I need the pool and blood. Now I need to find a vote. Ok. Got a vote card. Hmm.. going to need some stealth to get this off. Crap. My prey just brought up another Prince. How can I talk this vote through to get my Voter Cap off... That's one reason I don't play vote decks so much. And only run Voter Cap in some of them. I play a lot more combat decks and always play with Taste of Vitae, which is much easier to cycle, and tends to provide a very useful effect (even if you don't "win" the combat round). -Ben Swainbank

On Feb 5, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. > > > So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? > > > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > I could get behind that. My main concern is the thinking in this thread may be along the lines of creating votes that do more damage than KRC, with pool and blood cost, and nerfing votes cap to balance them. I don't see more, or stronger, pool damaging votes as something the game needs. I would rather see new votes that do less pool damage (or none) or provide less pool gain than current options. But they can be balanced by mechanisms to reduce the opportunity costs (stealthier, easier to pass, untap if sucessfull etc...). If weakening Voter cap opens the door to that kind of change (and I can see how it could) then I'm all for it. -Ben Swainbank

LSJ wrote: > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is > the number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. > [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. > Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the > referendum). > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. You guys really should take into account that politicans are a tad expensive. To get table domination, you will probably be spending 20ish pool and really a lot of turns to get a IC/justicar or similar out. And you can relatively easily get your 11 pool worth 4 votes hammered by a 5-cap with ANI/POT or CEL/POT. Or simply get a govern + conditioning in the second/third turn with no vampires of your own to defend yourself. Voter cap is a bit strong, but politicians usually don't have a lot of stealth if they want to be sure to pass those referendums and gain blood /pool. A measly 1-2 intercept usually stops them. And they're extremely voulnerable to combat, and to delaying tactics, or irregular protocol if they use mass awe+voter. I don't think it's smart to do such drastic nerfs to voter, or we'll be seeing weenie pre/PRE decks with 10 praxis seizures and 12 KRC's and 20 voter cap's instead of the usual pretty normal politic decks. A nerf, perhaps, but nerfing voter to the ground is gonna make politics extremely unattractive.

LSJ wrote: > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. My suggestion is that voter cannot be used on political actions that cost blood, or political actions that cause methuselah's to burn pool. I think the only overwhelming part of the voter captivation is the extremely annoying thing of bloating and going forward in the same time.

In article <1170706298.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Wasn't that more a clarity change (get rid of the post-strike "Taste" > phase. Make sure you can't tasted the same damage 3 times etc...)? Very possibly, as the Jyhad version of Taste is wildly confusing (i.e. based on the wording, what happens if you play 3 at the same time, which lead to a lot of rulings on the card, which eventually ended up with the new wording). > The > power change was relatively minor - especially compared to the > proposed Voter Cap changes. It was less minor than you probably think--the change in *when* Taste happened had a huge impact on non Celerity combat (in the old days, the Nosferatu could fight the Brujah toe to toe with excessive use of Taste, as you could Taste *before* additional strikes). Now you need to survive the whole round to play Taste. Which is no small nerfing. > If you assume the opportunity cost has already been met, then yes, its > pretty insignificant at that point. I mean, like, you are correct in that *voting* as a strategy has a pretty high opportunity cost (i.e. if you get blocked or can't pass your votes, your deck is mostly dead cards). But assuming you can play your deck (i.e. you can generally get through unblocked and generally pass votes, even though either of these might not happen occasionally), Voter Cap is little more than another greasy wheel. > My Voter Cap inner monologue tends to something like: There's a Voter > Cap. Good. I need the pool and blood. Now I need to find a vote. Ok. > Got a vote card. Hmm.. going to need some stealth to get this off. > Crap. My prey just brought up another Prince. How can I talk this vote > through to get my Voter Cap off... Sure. But that is the same for pretty much *all* cogs in a vote deck. "Hey! I have this cool vote card. Now I need a stealth card to get it past that blocker. And then a Bewitching to make it pass." Or "Hey! I have a Bewitching, an Awe and a Voter Cap! If only I had a vote to call..." One of the costs of vote decks in general is that they tend to have a lot of moving parts that need to all be in the right place at the right time. Voter Cap is just another part that needs to be factored in. > I play a lot more combat decks and always play with Taste of Vitae, > which is much easier to cycle, and tends to provide a very useful > effect (even if you don't "win" the combat round). Sure. Taste is really good. But as LSJ pointed out earlier, Taste has a pretty significant opportunity cost ( which I would claim is more restrictive than Voter Cap due to the inherent risks of combat i.e. you need to get into a fight and survive till the end of the round and do damage to your opponent) that balances it out. And it doesn't nullify the cost of combat cards in the same way that Voter Cap nullifies the cost of, say, Awe--I generally don't play, like, Pushing the Limit in combat decks specifically 'cause the 1 blood cost makes it that much more likely that you'll get torped and not get to play Taste. I don't have such reservations about Awe. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <eq84om$702$1...@ss408.t-com.hr>, dome <le...@email.htnet.hr> wrote: > You guys really should take into account that politicans are a tad > expensive. To get table domination, you will probably be spending 20ish > pool and really a lot of turns to get a IC/justicar or similar out. Or, ya know, playing with little guys with PRE pushing all of your votes through with Bewitching/Awe and getting all the Awe blood back with Voter Cap. > I don't think it's smart to do such drastic nerfs to voter, or we'll be > seeing weenie pre/PRE decks with 10 praxis seizures and 12 KRC's and 20 > voter cap's instead of the usual pretty normal politic decks. We already see those decks, and they already abuse the heck out of Voter Cap (why spend 20 pool on 2 vampires when you can spend 20 pool on 5 vampires and still push your votes through with that big pile of Awe you shelled out for, when the cost is nullified by Voter Cap). Nerfing Voter Cap will have an effect on big vampire vote decks, yeah, but it'll mostly just require a bit of adjustment being built in (i.e. extra blood gain). And might very well open the way to things like votes that fill up your vampires or something. > A nerf, perhaps, but nerfing voter to the ground is gonna make politics > extremely unattractive. Seems unlikely. Even if you get to either just gain 2 blood or gain 2 pool, Voter Cap would still be pretty solid (i.e. free pool gain, just for showing up). It would require a bit of strategy tweaking and maybe some new cards. But vote decks still likely would be just as beefy as before. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 3, 4:38 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [...] > Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with > costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual > acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option > of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. I think political actions could have other requirements/costs instead of a blood cost to make them balanced. For example: Pool cost Tapping another vampire you control Keeping the acting vampire from playing further action modifiers during this action ETC, ETC, ETC... So there is no need to change Voter Captivation. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

> Sure. Taste is really good. But as LSJ pointed out earlier, Taste has a > pretty significant opportunity cost ( which I would claim is more > restrictive than Voter Cap due to the inherent risks of combat i.e. you > need to get into a fight and survive till the end of the round and do > damage to your opponent) that balances it out. And it doesn't nullify > the cost of combat cards in the same way that Voter Cap nullifies the > cost of, say, Awe--I generally don't play, like, Pushing the Limit in > combat decks specifically 'cause the 1 blood cost makes it that much > more likely that you'll get torped and not get to play Taste. I don't > have such reservations about Awe. Also note that Taste is limited in blood gain to the amount of blood posessed by the opposing vampire. Voter Captivation is only limited by the number of votes you can generate, and is likely to yield consistently higher margins in any but the votiest of environments.

In article <1170712110.5...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > I think political actions could have other requirements/costs instead > of a blood cost to make them balanced. Sure, but giving them a blood/pool cost is the most obvious (and logical) way to balance out a card, and the existence of Voter Cap pretty much completely removes this tool from the arsenal of the card designers in regards to Political Actions. > For example: > > Pool cost Unless the Pool cost is high enough to counteract the pool gain from the Voter Cap, it is, like a blood cost, mostly irrelevant. And giving a card a pool cost that balances out the card with Voter Cap is likely to make the card wildly unplayable by non Presence vote decks. For example, how good would a PA card have to be to justify a 3 pool cost? And how good would it have to be to justify using it in a non Presence vote deck at a 3 pool cost? Likely pretty good. Which would probably make it either too good to put in a Presence vote deck, or not good enough to put into a non Presence vote deck. > Tapping another vampire you control > Keeping the acting vampire from playing further action modifiers > during this action Both of these are reasonable, but likely require a lot more testing and balancing than simply enabling the designers to add a blood/pool cost to a PA card that they currently can't realistically do. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 5, 11:28 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1170712110.586026.162...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > I think political actions could have other requirements/costs instead > > of a blood cost to make them balanced. > > Sure, but giving them a blood/pool cost is the most obvious (and > logical) way to balance out a card, and the existence of Voter Cap > pretty much completely removes this tool from the arsenal of the card > designers in regards to Political Actions. > > > For example: > > > Pool cost > > Unless the Pool cost is high enough to counteract the pool gain from the > Voter Cap, it is, like a blood cost, mostly irrelevant. And giving a > card a pool cost that balances out the card with Voter Cap is likely to > make the card wildly unplayable by non Presence vote decks. If you want to create a political action playable by non Presence vote decks then have them require a Clan or a vampire without Presence. Do not just change Voter Captivation as the easiest solution. [...] > > Tapping another vampire you control > > Keeping the acting vampire from playing further action modifiers > > during this action > > Both of these are reasonable, but likely require a lot more testing and > balancing than simply enabling the designers to add a blood/pool cost to > a PA card that they currently can't realistically do. Exactly, it requires a lot more testing and balancing than simply changing Voter Captivation because of lack of imagination. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-D5AB3D.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D [ quoted text not captured ] A number of WW non-political cards have had some quite unusual costs and requirements, or tinkering with same. Examples: - Eye of Hazimel and Polaris Coach have an upkeep cost - a whole new class of cards (Events) was invented and balanced with a new basic mechanic, and many cards operate based on the number of (some) other Events already in play - Mata Hari (principally, but also Kemintiri and Tatiana Stepanova) lets you completely dick with clan requirements - many bloodlines discipline cards are more powerful AND have fallback levels - Anarch three-ways spice up inferior disciplines - Auto-da-Fe introduces a use for Inquisitor - pretty much all of Nights of Reckoning uses a completely batshit new cost system, relative to anything ever seen before I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out > interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they > couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to. There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the choice. So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so not really a matter of "choice" at all. But if: 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful and 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design then the obvious course of action is to fix VC.

On Feb 6, 12:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out > > interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they > > couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to. > > There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the choice. > So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so not really a matter > of "choice" at all. Scott, didn't the whole Voter Captivation suggested change start because you thought VC is an obstacle to making balanced PA cards with costs? QUOTE: "Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones." /QUOTE Costs/requirements and effects are the only options that should be taken into account when designing new political actions (along with game balance, of course). I am sure you can come up with enough innovative or not so innovative requirements for new political actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1170715462.6...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > If you want to create a political action playable by non Presence vote > decks then have them require a Clan or a vampire without Presence. Do > not just change Voter Captivation as the easiest solution. It isn't just that it is the easiest solution. Voter Cap is, in and of itself, arguably too powerful. As noted earlier, compare it to Taste and 5th Tradition (both of which have been significantly altered since their original introduction, unlike Voter Cap which is still the same), Giant's Blood (which has a significant limitation from day 1), Concert Tour and Entrenching (which have both been designed recently, and have significant limits built into them). Voter Cap is a wildly powerful card that somehow has managed to avoid the tweaks that hit most similar cards of the same era. > Exactly, it requires a lot more testing and balancing than simply > changing Voter Captivation because of lack of imagination. Lack of imagination isn't really the issue here (see Eldest Command Undeath--not an elegant solution, and not one that I would like to see a lot of. But certainly imaginative)--if a standard paradigm of card design (i.e. making a card cost blood/pool for increased effect) is cut off due to a single, arguably overpowered card, and fixing that card will both make it less overpowered *and* restore that tool to the designers, the solution seems obvious. At least to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <W7pxh.1567$gj4...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Game show time! > > Man. We need a theme song now... http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/eric+clapton/cocaine_20051236.html Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It's probably worth noting that the more significant problem with VC, as reflected in "why isn't it worthwhile to make vote cards cost something", is its ability to refill the calling vampire, as opposed to the "gain 2 pool" aspect. Given the ease of pool recursion in this game (Blood Doll, Minion Tap), it's important to consider that ANY card which grants blood to a vampire is only one step away from actually granting pool to that vampire's controlling Methuselah. Given the above... LSJ wrote: > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is > the number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. > [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. This still reads "Gain 4 pool". > Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the > referendum). > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. As another poster noted, this doesn't speed up the "do math during the referendum to prevent Voter Cap" step any, and possibly increases the number of stumbling blocks to actually running a vote deck unnecessarily. > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently > fizzles on. In general, I like this, though the auto-pass quirk will certainly make it interesting. However, it might lead to more use of auto-pass vote tech overall (something often avoided because of the inability to play Voter Cap, interestingly), and possibly even lead to the idea of things like Praxis Seizure seeing play again in a midcap voter deck as the TAIL end of an autopass vote, instead of as an innocuous run-up. If nothing else, it should speed up the "do math" stage of the referendums; either you like the outcome or you don't, and it also will remove the "why won't you vote in favor so I can Voter Cap for more" whining stage, something I was heartily sick of well over four years ago. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFx8vKtQZlu3o7QpERAoNDAJ4xhoWvvHgSZHCBCTfrytgKNs5rCgCg3nXc mEDRmZ4cGO/47dn8AqKF8M8= =natK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Feb 3, 7:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, unblockable, > restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in its primary goal in > the first place). And then it compounds the effect with pool gain to boot. Yes. It seems incredibly good for all vote decks with PRE as currently written. > Other comparable effects: > Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. > Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. > Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. Maybe these were already mentioned, but also consider Renewed Vigor, Restoration, and Regeneration. > Thoughts? Ooh, LSJ asking for design input - I love it! This game is so great, and LSJ is awesome. It's really incredible that the CCG designer is asking for open input from players. My thoughts: - I agree that Voter Cap is overpowered. - I like the idea of simplifying the card to work whenever the vote passes, regardless by how much (or at least 2.) A specific card idea that requires minimal change is: - Play before any votes are cast. If the referendum is successful... That way, if the vote fails or is delayed, you've wasted it. I think that makes for a bit more interesting interactions between DT and vote cancellations, too. To weaken it even more, it could be played when the vote action is announced, and then people would know to block it. If I were designing, I would make it most similar to Restoration, and would choose: Play during a referendum before any votes are cast. [pre] If this referendum passes, gain two blood. [PRE] If this referendum passes, gain three blood. I think the pool gain aspect is the biggest issue, so that's what I would remove. If that seems too weak, then perhaps: Play during a referendum before any votes are cast. [pre] If the vote passes, the acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. If pool gain seems appealing, then I would pick: Play during a referendum before votes are cast. [pre] If the vote passes, the acting vampire gains 2 blood. [PRE] as above, and gain 1 pool. Making this change also encourages non-presence based vote decks; as things stand now, I have to have very strong reasons not to include PRE and voter cap in a vote deck. For any of the above texts, I would still play with the card (I think), but not as many. Ira

> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. Please do NOT weaken Big Cap Vamps by hosing this card too much. Big Cap Vamps already have it tough when compared to weenies! All the suggestions so far do NOT affect weenie voters as much as they hurt big cap vampires. Suggestions: What about adding a capacity requirement to the card? Only playable by 6 cap or above? Base the amount of blood/pool gained on the capacity of the vampire (capacity minus 3 or capacity minus 4?) Please be careful redesigning this card! Are you having trouble designing bleed cards? Perhaps you should look at redesigning Govern the Unaligned? Vegas gNat

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ira...@gmail.com wrote: > My thoughts: > - I agree that Voter Cap is overpowered. > - I like the idea of simplifying the card to work whenever the vote > passes, regardless by how much (or at least 2.) > > A specific card idea that requires minimal change is: > - Play before any votes are cast. If the referendum is successful... I wouldn't play this card. > To weaken it even more, it could be played when the vote action is > announced, and then people would know to block it. I wouldn't play that card, either. > If I were designing, I would make it most similar to Restoration, and > would choose: > > Play during a referendum before any votes are cast. > [pre] If this referendum passes, gain two blood. > [PRE] If this referendum passes, gain three blood. I'd use maybe 2 copies of this card at the most. For only 3 blood that I have to pull off manually, I have better things to include in a deck. > I think the pool gain aspect is the biggest issue, so that's what I > would remove. See other post. The blood gain is the biggest problem. For example, if you suddenly made, say, PTO cost 4 blood to call, and turned Voter Cap into a 1-pool/2-pool card, is there now a significant cost to calling and passing PTO? Obviously, there is; especially if you need to use a card like Awe. Contrast with existing VC, where you refill the vampire _and_ possibly still gain 1/2 pool. > If that seems too weak, then perhaps: > Play during a referendum before any votes are cast. I wouldn't play this card. > If pool gain seems appealing, then I would pick: > Play during a referendum before votes are cast. I wouldn't play this card. You may have noticed a theme here; when you force people to throw out a big ol' "This vote should not be allowed to pass" before votes are cast, then you force them to create table hostility. Sure, right now everyone still reflexively assumes that someone is going to Voter Cap, but the card's sheer strength makes it worthwile to do it anyway and just include enough push to make sure it always passes, table hostility be damned. If you weaken the card, however, you make it less likely that 8 have been automatically included in the deck -- and as such you provide an opportunity for people to just Play The Game, instead of feeling like they have to anti-vote just to cut down on the Voter Cap. Forcing the card to be played before votes are cast removes the uncertainty. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFx9S5tQZlu3o7QpERAn87AJ9Ygm23Qlo4elbgL9Y0Dtye9W8N4ACgtcQ3 BCSaMQ7B/CgswHxUkn8R/jo= =p8sl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:nxLxh. 52350$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential". Scott, you seem fixated on how overpowered Voter Cap is. I empathize with your concerns in finding consistent ways to create cost/value relationships, but I'm still hazy about how overpowered the card is. Question: Is Voter Captivation really that dominant in a competitive environment? Analysis: I did a quick word search on Lasombra's TWDA, with the following results for occurrences of the following phrases: Blood Doll 503 Minion Tap 230 Govern the Unaligned 188 Majesty 160 Kine Resources Contested 134 Taste of Vitae 120 Freak Drive 118 Voter Captivation 86 Kindred Spirits 45 Perfectionist 36 Voter Captivation and most of the associated tournament-worthy votes have been around since Dark Sovereigns. Yet only 65% of the decks that employ KRC employ Voter Captivation. Voter Cap is much less "abused" in winning decks than Govern the Unaligned. Taste of Vitae shows up more often. Given this trend, I fail to see how Voter Captivation creates a dominant game-winning deck archetype. So the perception of "overpoweredness" most come from something other than the competitive environment. I'll extrapolate - and I believe it comes from two issues: - the creation of a powerful pool gain loop (with some pool reward for actually passing the vote) - a preconception that the cost/benefit of a card must be derived from blood spent by the acting vampire. Therefore Voter Cap, which negates that cost (and to lesser extents Ancara Citadel and Perfectionist) are overpowered. I understand that 5th Tradition was nerfed for that first reason alone. But 5th Traditon/Forgotten Labyrinth was much easier to pull off than Vote/Forgotten Labyrinth/Awe (table-talk)/Voter Cap - so I expect a greater reward from Voter Cap than 5th Tradition. Yes, I maintain this despite claims that Voter Cap is a "freebie" because you can play it when your deck does what it is supposed to - pass votes. It's not a freebie. When one uses Cap extensively, one sees the high opportunity cost this card represents - when things go wrong, you're stuck with a crapload of in-vote cards and nothing else. Then, you die. High (hidden) cost, high reward profile. Sounds OK to me. As for that second point, yeah that's tricky and a pain in the hind end from a designer's viewpoint. Hence I can understand your conviction that Voter Cap is a problem actor. But there have been a plethora of other cost options discussed that might serve to alleviate your angst. I encourage you to explore some of them. My fear remains that your proposals will turn a staple card that encourages voting into something that most of us would never put in a competitive deck. Even worse, until new high-quality votes are offered, it will completely neuter the already-difficult-to-design-and- play vote decks, rendering them unworthy of tournament play. And yes, I maintain that votes decks that do something other than Praxis/KRC/ Cap at 1 stealth (e.g., the good decks) are difficult to build and play. So, as you consider possible "fixes" - remember that your nerfbat is much heavier than you might think. 5th Trad certainly knows this - it's cornercase/wallpaper these days. Looking forward to even more interesting dialog, Darby

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > It isn't just that it is the easiest solution. Voter Cap is, in and of > itself, arguably too powerful. As noted earlier, compare it to Taste > and 5th Tradition (both of which have been significantly altered > since their original introduction, unlike Voter Cap which is still > the same), > ... > Voter Cap is a wildly powerful card that somehow has managed > to avoid the tweaks that hit most similar cards of the same era. We should consider the possibility that Voter Cap avoided the tweaks because it isn't TOO powerful. Powerful, true, but not overpowered or undercosted, certainly not enough to justify a change based on (what I believe to be) only the design team's issues in designing new votes, a valid issue, regardless. oldTaste of Vitae required only combat, and it could be played at multiple times during the round -- a 1-card "combo". old5th Tradition required only a Prince/Justicar and (probably) some stealth -- only a 2-card combo. These were cards with powerful effects that were arguably overpowered and/or undercosted. Voter Captivation requires a vampire with pre/PRE, then: 1. a vote card 2. (probably) some level of stealth 3. an Awe or Bewitching Oration 4. success in the referendum 5. the Voter Cap So, a conditional 4-card combo, and G-d forbid that you're trying to vote with non-stealthy presence voters. To compare it to old5th and any version of Taste is to not understand the level of difficulty of pulling off the Voter Cap, not to mention the fact that voting decks, like dedicated-Combat decks, are incredibly card-intensive, and very careful consideration should be taken to determine whether or not changing one of their important cards, lest you make those decks significantly less playable. Have dedicated-Combat decks been so weak that Alastor, Dogs of War, Perpetual Care, Dragonbound, Carver's Meat Packing, Frontal Assault, Haqim's Law: Judgement, Yawp Court, Red List and Trophies, and all the new 'Action: (D) may enter combat' cards needed to be created to enhance their effectiveness, and dedicated-Vote decks are so strong that Voter Captivation all by itself needs to be changed? I don't see it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Darby Keeney wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:nxLxh. > 52350$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential". > > Scott, you seem fixated on how overpowered Voter Cap is. No. Just discussing it. > I empathize > with your concerns in finding consistent ways to create cost/value > relationships, but I'm still hazy about how overpowered the card is. That's what my initial post was about. > Question: Is Voter Captivation really that dominant in a competitive > environment? [...] > So the perception of "overpoweredness" most come from something other > than the competitive environment. Yes. See my initial post. Bloat, both in blood and pool, as needed, is, inherently, strong. The easier the bloat, the stronger it is. VC bloat is ease personified. Namely: do nothing extra, just play the card whenever your deck is working at all. > I'll extrapolate - and I believe it comes from two issues: > - the creation of a powerful pool gain loop (with some pool reward > for actually passing the vote) > - a preconception that the cost/benefit of a card must be derived > from blood spent by the acting vampire. Therefore Voter Cap, which > negates that cost (and to lesser extents Ancara Citadel and > Perfectionist) are overpowered. > > I understand that 5th Tradition was nerfed for that first reason > alone. But 5th Traditon/Forgotten Labyrinth was much easier to pull > off than Vote/Forgotten Labyrinth/Awe (table-talk)/Voter Cap - so I > expect a greater reward from Voter Cap than 5th Tradition. Yes, I > maintain this despite claims that Voter Cap is a "freebie" because you > can play it when your deck does what it is supposed to - pass votes. That last sentence is at odds with the preceding. 5th/FL is a sideline - and end unto itself. It takes away resources from the primary goal of the deck (primarily the action). Vote/Fl/Awe is the deck, not the bloat. Not a sideline. The VC is the freebie that tags bloat onto that. > It's not a freebie. When one uses Cap extensively, one sees the high > opportunity cost this card represents - when things go wrong, you're > stuck with a crapload of in-vote cards and nothing else. Then, you > die. High (hidden) cost, high reward profile. Sounds OK to me. I have seen VC used extensively enough to see that it is freebie bloat. The hidden costs of VC are not high. When they are high, they amount to scarcely more than nothing (kicking the legs out from under a dead horse doesn't slow the horse down). > As for that second point, yeah that's tricky and a pain in the hind > end from a designer's viewpoint. Hence I can understand your > conviction that Voter Cap is a problem actor. But there have been a > plethora of other cost options discussed that might serve to alleviate > your angst. I encourage you to explore some of them. Angst? What angst? Encouragement to exploration is not needed. I have explored them, as has been noted already, and will continue to do so, as should be obvious. Moreover, I would also like to explore the more direct costing facilities available to every other aspect of the game. > My fear remains that your proposals will turn a staple card that > encourages voting into something that most of us would never put in a > competitive deck. Even worse, until new high-quality votes are > offered, it will completely neuter the already-difficult-to-design-and- > play vote decks, rendering them unworthy of tournament play. And yes, > I maintain that votes decks that do something other than Praxis/KRC/ > Cap at 1 stealth (e.g., the good decks) are difficult to build and > play. I have seen much evidence to the contrary. Unless you classify all good decks as being difficult to design and play (which I'd grant, in general). But even so, one too-weak card is better than one too-powerful one. The too weak ones can be ignored when building and playing decks. > So, as you consider possible "fixes" - remember that your nerfbat is > much heavier than you might think. 5th Trad certainly knows this - > it's cornercase/wallpaper these days. The weight of the nerfbat is infinite. The question is of aim and precision.

On Feb 5, 11:53 am, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Options for changing the vote game dynamic: > > Weaken older cards (KRC - divide 3 point points... ) > Create more non-Presence voter-cap like effects, and sucesssful vote > rewards > Create cards that invite use because they are flexible or overcome > typical Vote-deck problems (Votes with +2 stealth, or worth 2-3 votes) > Or action mods that provide stealth and/or votes (or allow muliple > Political Cards with a single action?). > I don't think this post should be dismissed out of hand when the other option is nerfing a long-standing, often-played card. And specifically a card that, in many ways, makes voting worth doing at all. Not saying that VC definitely should stay the way it is, but what about some other options? Maybe new cards that will make Voter Cap less useful (a bit of a tangent to Ben's post)... sure, this is like the "DI Defense" that says that nothing is broken because you can always DI it. You would actually have to play with the VC hosers in order for VC to actually be any less powerful, and the hoser cards would have to be useful in other ways, too. A few ideas: Strangulation Reaction Requires a ready Anarch vampire tha: The acting vampire may not gain blood during this action. Any blood he or she gains goes to the blood bank instead. qui: The acting vampire may not gain blood during this action. Any blood he or she gains goes to the blood bank instead. pot: The acting vampire takes 1 damage. If this causes the acting vampire to go to torpor, the action fails. No cost is paid. Anarch Threat Event Non-anarch vampires may not gain blood except by hunting, or from Hunting Ground cards. Any blood they gain goes to the blood bank instead. During each methuselah's untap phase, that methuselah may move one blood from any of his or her vampires to this card. Burn this card when there are 5 blood counters on it. Heated Debate (preferably a picture of a vampire with blood dripping from its fangs and hands) Reaction. Frenzy, played on this reacting vampire. Requires a ready vampire. Only usable during a political action before votes are cast. If the referendum passes, the acting vampire takes X damage, where X is the number of votes by which the referendum passed. And regardless of whether or not VC is nerfed, or whether some other course of action is taken, I definitely do like the idea of some votes with additional benefits. Something like a 3-point KRC that is called with +2 stealth or that gives you +2 votes. Free States Rant is also a good example of a vote card that changed the voting scene to a certain degree - very nice vote that is called by an Independent vampire (who is likely to be untitled), and reduces the value of titles and increases the value of the Edge. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more creative votes along the lines of FSR.

On Feb 6, 1:08 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1170715462.617681.267...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > > "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > If you want to create a political action playable by non Presence vote > > decks then have them require a Clan or a vampire without Presence. Do > > not just change Voter Captivation as the easiest solution. > > It isn't just that it is the easiest solution. Voter Cap is, in and of > itself, arguably too powerful. As noted earlier, compare it to Taste and > 5th Tradition (both of which have been significantly altered since their > original introduction, unlike Voter Cap which is still the same), You are not taking into account that as some cards get powered down (such as Fitfh Tradition: Hospitality), other cards with similar effects become the most powerful ones in that field. But this does not necessarily mean that these still unchanged cards are too powerful. > Giant's Blood (which has a significant limitation from day 1), Concert > Tour and Entrenching (which have both been designed recently, and have > significant limits built into them). Voter Cap is a wildly powerful card > that somehow has managed to avoid the tweaks that hit most similar cards > of the same era. Voter Captivation has allowed high capacity vampires to be playable in vote decks. Do you have any other suggestion to make them still viable with the current VTES cards, except Voter Captivation? And you forgot other blood gain ways such as Renewed Vigor and Baltimore Purge plus Diablerie (which is totally broken). > > Exactly, it requires a lot more testing and balancing than simply > > changing Voter Captivation because of lack of imagination. > > Lack of imagination isn't really the issue here Yes, it is ;-) > (see Eldest Command > Undeath--not an elegant solution, and not one that I would like to see a > lot of. But certainly imaginative) [...] Not so imaginative, since there is still a blood cost involved. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 6, 4:33 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > You are not taking into account that as some cards get powered down > (such as Fitfh Tradition: Hospitality), other cards with similar > effects become the most powerful ones in that field. But this does not > necessarily mean that these still unchanged cards are too powerful. Sure. But in Voter Cap's instance, it probably is too powerful. > Voter Captivation has allowed high capacity vampires to be playable in > vote decks. Do you have any other suggestion to make them still viable > with the current VTES cards, except Voter Captivation? How is it that Voter Cap is the mechanism that allows high capacity vampires in vote decks? I mean, yeah, it is handy and all, but why is *it* the card? 'Cause you can Minion Tap/Refil/repeat? 'Cause you get 2 pool every time you play a vote? There are perfectly viable vote decks that use high capacity vampires and not Voter Cap. How is it that those decks are viable *without* Voter Cap? -Peter

Stop Changing card!!! Voter capt is a good card but it's not so powerful. To play you need: 1 - to do an action that won't be blocked.This action is undirected and can be easely blocked by your prey or your predator. 2 - to have the vote lock alone... or to be able to convince the people how has vote. 3 - then you need to pass the vote. It mean not take a delaying tactic, posin pill, confusion of the eye. I don't know all metagame. But in France and in Switzerland ther is a minimu of 4 deleying tactics in each deck without vote.... 4 - then you need to play voter capte and don't take a direct on it... So let's see your hand befor the vote: one vote two stealth card to be able to passe it one voter captivation... So it's 4 card's... Voter Captivation got a lot of flaw... you can't cicle it without passing vote.... I think that's enough. And the argument of the "Eldest Commnd Undeath" is bad. This card is a complete wall paper. Even if you where able to gain blood it won't be a good card. Makimum a kinder card I will say. Vote are suppose to be able to give you table controle... this card is only to hurt your prey... Crap. And to finish the card that is really strong with voter capt is Minion Tap. Voter capte is nothing without it... If you really wan't to change the game banish blood doll and minion tap... then you will see a big difference.

Stop Changing card!!! [ quoted text not captured ] Olivier Perez

Just as an info... in 1 hour ther is 2 pages of: don't change the card on the french forum... I am sorry but I can't resume it right know becaus I must go to work.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 6, 4:33 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > You are not taking into account that as some cards get powered down > > (such as Fitfh Tradition: Hospitality), other cards with similar > > effects become the most powerful ones in that field. But this does not > > necessarily mean that these still unchanged cards are too powerful. > > Sure. But in Voter Cap's instance, it probably is too powerful. Too powerful for what? > > Voter Captivation has allowed high capacity vampires to be playable in > > vote decks. Do you have any other suggestion to make them still viable > > with the current VTES cards, except Voter Captivation? > > How is it that Voter Cap is the mechanism that allows high capacity > vampires in vote decks? I mean, yeah, it is handy and all, but why is > *it* the card? 'Cause you can Minion Tap/Refil/repeat? 'Cause you get > 2 pool every time you play a vote? Both, but those combos are not automatic. There are some requirements involved (e.g., you don't get 2 pool every time you play a vote). Sometimes your votes get blocked, or don't pass, etc. The fact that bringing out a high capacity vampire is a big pool investement, means that you need effective ways to get that pool back, if you want to bring out more vampires and take more actions per turn. > There are perfectly viable vote decks that use high capacity vampires and not Voter Cap. Such as? [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > > There are perfectly viable vote decks that use high capacity vampires and not Voter Cap. > Such as? Orlando Oriundus!

On Feb 6, 8:33 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Too powerful for what? Too powerful compared to other cards that refil your vampires. Most other cards the refil your vampires are: -Limited in effect (only give you a small amount, like 1-4) -Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations) -Limited in use (only once per game) -Take an action (that action does nothing but give you blood) Voter Cap isn't like this. You gain a lot of blood (combined with Awe, you refil completely) *and* some pool. All while taking an action that is probably injuring your prey anyway (KRC?). It doesn't require an action that doesn't hurt your prey. It can happen multiple times per turn. It works if your deck is working at all. Its effect is only limited by the number of Awes you own. It is a highly unrestricted, unlimited, hardly conditional card that happens while your deck is doing what it wants to be doing anyway. > Both, but those combos are not automatic. There are some requirements > involved (e.g., you don't get 2 pool every time you play a vote). > Sometimes your votes get blocked, or don't pass, etc. Sure. But as mentioned before, if your deck is doing what it is meant to be doing (i.e. calling votes and passing votes), the additional cost to play Voter Cap is insignificant (i.e. have one in your hand. Yeah, sometimes you get blocked. And sometimes you get voted down. But that is an issue with vote decks as a whole, and isn't actually a problem for Voter Cap. If your deck is going, you can play Voter Cap. > The fact that bringing out a high capacity vampire is a big pool > investement, means that you need effective ways to get that pool back, > if you want to bring out more vampires and take more actions per turn. So you Minion Tap and get blood back in ways that other non Presence enabled big vampire decks do (Giant's Blood; Entrench/Freak; whatever). Other decks use big vampires. That don't use Voter Cap. And they survive. > Such as? Nosferatu Royalty--there are multiples of these in the TWDA (mind you, my version that is in the TWDA has Presence in it :-). Sabbat Cardinal. Non presence backed All IC decks. They exist. And are playable. And don't have Voter Cap. And I don't think there is any discussion here of eliminating Voter Cap, just reducing its effect. And if it is hard to pull off Voter Cap for a reasonable amount as you seem to think it is, isn't making it just give you 2 blood or 2 pool on any successful vote (like the best candidate for the change) an *improvement*? -Peter

On Feb 6, 7:50 am, olivier.eni...@gmail.com wrote: > Stop Changing card!!! When was the last time a card got changed? > Voter capt is a good card but it's not so powerful. > To play you need: > 1 - to do an action that won't be blocked.This action is undirected > and can be easely blocked by your prey or your predator. This is a cost of voting. Not Voter Cap. > 2 - to have the vote lock alone... or to be able to convince the > people how has vote. Or, ya know, a handfull of Awe. > 3 - then you need to pass the vote. It mean not take a delaying > tactic, posin pill, confusion of the eye. I don't know all metagame. > But in France and in Switzerland ther is a minimu of 4 deleying > tactics in each deck without vote.... Again, a cost of voting, not Voter Cap. > 4 - then you need to play voter capte and don't take a direct on it... Really, the cost of Voter Cap is: -Playing the game you intended on playing anyway. -Having one in your hand. -Not getting DIed. If you were playing the game you were intending on playing anyway, this isn't much of a cost. Having one in your hand is the same cost for any card. Not getting DIed is the same cost for any card. > And the argument of the "Eldest Commnd Undeath" is bad. This card is a > complete wall paper. Only 'cause PTO exists. But that is a whole other discussion. > And to finish the card that is really strong with voter capt is Minion > Tap. Voter capte is nothing without it... > If you really wan't to change the game banish blood doll and minion > tap... then you will see a big difference. Have you been following this discussion? No one is trying to banish anything. Just possibly downpower Voter Cap as: A) It is arguably too powerful as it is. B) It makes designing other vote cards really difficult. -Peter

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:ORSxh.16097$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Darby Keeney wrote: >> Scott, you seem fixated on how overpowered Voter Cap is. > > No. Just discussing it. >> So, as you consider possible "fixes" - remember that your nerfbat is >> much heavier than you might think. > > The weight of the nerfbat is infinite. The question is of aim and > precision. Whatever the changes might occur, thanks for discussing in the playbase before reaching a decision. D.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 6, 8:33 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > Too powerful for what? > > Too powerful compared to other cards that refil your vampires. Most > other cards the refil your vampires are:[...] Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many years (since 1994)? And the fact VC is powerful does not mean it needs a card text change. > > Both, but those combos are not automatic. There are some requirements > > involved (e.g., you don't get 2 pool every time you play a vote). > > Sometimes your votes get blocked, or don't pass, etc. > > Sure. But as mentioned before, if your deck is doing what it is meant > to be doing (i.e. calling votes and passing votes), the additional > cost to play Voter Cap is insignificant (i.e. have one in your hand. > Yeah, sometimes you get blocked. And sometimes you get voted down. But > that is an issue with vote decks as a whole, and isn't actually a > problem for Voter Cap. If your deck is going, you can play Voter Cap. OK, we agree VC is not automatic. [...] > So you Minion Tap and get blood back in ways that other non Presence > enabled big vampire decks do (Giant's Blood; Entrench/Freak; > whatever). Other decks use big vampires. That don't use Voter Cap. And > they survive. > > > Such as? > > Nosferatu Royalty--there are multiples of these in the TWDA (mind you, > my version that is in the TWDA has Presence in it :-). Sabbat > Cardinal. Non presence backed All IC decks. They exist. And are > playable. And don't have Voter Cap. And I don't think there is any > discussion here of eliminating Voter Cap, just reducing its effect. Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at the same time they deal pool damage to its target. > And if it is hard to pull off Voter Cap for a reasonable amount as you > seem to think it is, isn't making it just give you 2 blood or 2 pool > on any successful vote (like the best candidate for the change) an > *improvement*? How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity vampires can survive without Voter Captivation? [ quoted text not captured ]

> A) It is arguably too powerful as it is. > B) It makes designing other vote cards really difficult. Don't forget: C) The current text leads to irritating and time consuming table talk and mental arithmetic that can easily cause games to time out, or worse, become dreadfully boring. I think this is actually a better reason to change the card than the power considerations being discussed. Although it's a bad example due to the scale of its ridiculousness, Madness of the Bard was banned because of its disruptive elements rather than its power. The same argument could be extended for Succubus Club, though not necessarily successfully.

On Feb 6, 12:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] is it? first of all, is voter capt overly powerful? I don't know, in my decks, the fewer I have voter cap, the better it is. Why? First, Because to be able to play a voter capt, you need a succesful political action, and most of the time, the action in itself is more interresting than the VC. secondly, you usually need other cards to make sure that the action will be succesful, like stealth, or cards to male sure that if you're blocked, you're vampire won't be crushed by a panzer. Then again, you will probably need some other cards to make sure that it will work. And once again, VC is secondary. Because a voter to be really interresting, you need to play a minion tap and a big vampire. And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap? Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly? Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all the time. VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for the setites. The toreador, are probably stronger in that respect, they have much more different ways to handle problems I think, thanks to... Anson mainly... We also use voter capt in Lasombra grp 2-3 deck which is also a powerful deck, and only thanks to voter capt this time I think. But I don't think it is as strong as a toreador/ventrue deck. All this is just to say that I don't think that VC is such a powerful card, and I don't think that it needs to be fixed. My biggest fear is that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too much.

Huruem wrote: > On Feb 6, 12:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out >>> interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they >>> couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to. >> There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the choice. >> So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so not really a matter >> of "choice" at all. >> >> But if: >> 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful >> and >> 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design >> >> then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. > > is it? Yes. > first of all, is voter capt overly powerful? Note: you are questioning the assumptions, not the conclusion (in contrast to your "is it?" query above, which questions he conclusion given that the assumptions are true). > I don't know, in my decks, the fewer I have voter cap, the better it > is. Why? First, Because to be able to play a voter capt, you need a > succesful political action, and most of the time, the action in itself > is more interresting than the VC. secondly, you usually need other > cards to make sure that the action will be succesful, like stealth, or > cards to male sure that if you're blocked, you're vampire won't be > crushed by a panzer. Then again, you will probably need some other > cards to make sure that it will work. And once again, VC is secondary. > Because a voter to be really interresting, you need to play a minion > tap and a big vampire. > > And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap? > Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly? > Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly > toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of > stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all > the time. VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something > that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for The Ventrue vote decks don't have defense? They have untap and intercept, bounce, obedience, damage prevention, and combat ends. What do you see as lacking in their defensive capability? Bloat? They still have 5th Trad, Entrenching, Minion Tap, Con Boon, Parity Shift, and so on if they need it (that is, if all their primary defenses fail). > the setites. The toreador, are probably stronger in that respect, they > have much more different ways to handle problems I think, thanks to... > Anson mainly... > > We also use voter capt in Lasombra grp 2-3 deck which is also a > powerful deck, and only thanks to voter capt this time I think. But I > don't think it is as strong as a toreador/ventrue deck. A lot of issues addressing political decks, but nothing really about Voter Captivation. Sure, the tautology that a deck which relies on or makes moderate use of a card whose power is weakened will be weaker if the deck is left untouched still holds. But that isn't the same as saying that the card is balanced to begin with. > All this is just to say that I don't think that VC is such a powerful > card, and I don't think that it needs to be fixed. My biggest fear is > that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too much. The idea is that the "fix" to Voter Cap would be chosen so as to not weaken decks that should be viable "too much".

"Huruem" <Huruem_...@hotmail.com> writes: > And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap? > Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly? > Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly > toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of > stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all > the time. You have totally forgotten everyone's favourite vamp: Arika. And her Ventrue-with-obfuscate friends. One of the strongest deck types in the whole game. > VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something > that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for > the setites. I agree for the Setite part, but - Ventrue don't have defense?? You're definitely smoking something much worse than crack. > My biggest fear is that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too > much. Any rules change that weakens Arika has my full support. ;-) -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Hey boy's to play voter capt you need to have Presence. The reason why this discipline is the vote discipline is because there is combat end's and voter capt and push bleed. The segond best vote decks are using obtenebrate that bring stealth and combat ends... If you want to balance vote between vampires then bring combat ends in a discipline that is use by some voters...

Wookie813 said: > Voter Cap is akin to these theoretical cards: >Bleeder Cap >[Makes you gain pool on a successful bleed action.] The main difference is that bleeding doesn't require any card. You're less likely to jam with such a card. Peter Bajika said: >Unless the Pool cost is high enough to counteract the pool gain from the >Voter Cap, it is, like a blood cost, mostly irrelevant. And giving a >card a pool cost that balances out the card with Voter Cap is likely to >make the card wildly unplayable by non Presence vote decks. For example, >how good would a PA card have to be to justify a 3 pool cost? And how >good would it have to be to justify using it in a non Presence vote deck >at a 3 pool cost? Likely pretty good. Which would probably make it >either too good to put in a Presence vote deck, or not good enough to >put into a non Presence vote deck. I think you're wrong considering that Voter Cap "negates" the pool cost. A vote that costs 2 pool 1) makes me lose pool, whether it is successful or not, and even before I can play VC. 2) won't allow me to bloat in pool with a VC since at best I don't gain nor I lose pool. Whether you play VC or not, the card has cost you 2 pool. There are many ways to gain back pool, and VC is one of them. Let's face it. VC allows you to bloat, it is what it was designed for. I think it's even harder nowadays to use VC at his full capacity, with all these "recent" cards introduces to weaken deck votes: Yawp court, Scalpel Tongue, Vox Domini, Poison Pill etc. Of course, Delaying Tactics and DI are still the most popular with good reason. Now, is VC "broken" ? The only thing I'm sure of is that it has a potentially a "stronger" effect than Art Scam or Entrenching, as long as you manage to get your vote pass by more than 2. But it's also harder to play. Take a look at a vote such as : KRCExtra Cost: 2 pool Allocate 5 points among one or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. Does it absolutely require a VC to be "playable"? I'd say no. I would mix it with KRC because it can give an extra acceleration when required to the deck. VC would allow you maybe to play some more, but it would become quite dangerous. Peter D Bakija wrote: >Too powerful compared to other cards that refil your vampires. Most >other cards the refil your vampires are: >Limited in effect (only give you a small amount, like 1-4) As is VC. -Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations) Far less conditional than VC. They are self-sufficient, and doesn't require more than 1 of the following: a discipline, a title, or a simple condition (4 blood for Entrenching). -Limited in use (only once per game) Only Giant's Blood is. -Take an action (that action does nothing but give you blood) Right, that's why they're usually not played. Does it mean VC should become as useless? >Voter Cap isn't like this. You gain a lot of blood (combined with Awe, >you refil completely) *and* some pool. All while taking an action that >is probably injuring your prey anyway (KRC?). It doesn't require an >action that doesn't hurt your prey. It can happen multiple times per >turn. It works if your deck is working at all. Its effect is only >limited by the number of Awes you own. It is a highly unrestricted, >unlimited, hardly conditional card that happens while your deck is >doing what it wants to be doing anyway. *ironic* Right, VC is totally broken. I wonder why it's not in all winning decks, though. I wonder even how the hell can anyone design a winning vote deck without presence.

> They have untap and intercept, bounce, obedience, damage prevention, and combat > ends. What do you see as lacking in their defensive capability? Bloat? They > still have 5th Trad, Entrenching, Minion Tap, Con Boon, Parity Shift, and so on > if they need it (that is, if all their primary defenses fail). Well, ventrue don't have any intercept, so to me, they have to compensate it with bloat. In that respect 5th tradition and Entenching are not really interresting actually, too many requirement, and not that efficient compared to VC. Parity shift is a bloody good bloat/damage card to me, much more interresting. The pool gain is immediate, not a long term action like entrenching and 5th trad and it also makes damages ! But above all there to bloat there is Consanguinous boon => mid cap/ swarm/weenies decks. By "fixing" VC, you would probably make low caps decks more interresting than high caps ones. And FFS I don't want to see more weenie presence, I've had anough ! lol High caps decks are not interresting in general, they have far too much weaknesses. like Pentex temptation of greater power, combat in general,... And they have very few ways to handle a good midcap/low cap deck, if not by bloating thanks both aspects of VC, large blood gain + pool gain. What is also interresting with VC is that it is also a key card in Free state rant decks, which are pretty weak compared to camarilla decks. VC is their only strength with the FSR vote in itself. Huruem Can't really find a way out for a compromise here...

On 6 Feb., 16:09, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many > years (since 1994)? We do not know if it wasn't an issue for the Design Team before. > And the fact VC is powerful does not mean it needs a card text change. Return to Innocence was powerful. Temptation of Greater Power was powerful. Majesty was powerful. They were judged powerful enough by the DT to warrant a change. > > Sure. But as mentioned before, if your deck is doing what it is meant > > to be doing (i.e. calling votes and passing votes), the additional > > cost to play Voter Cap is insignificant (i.e. have one in your hand. > > Yeah, sometimes you get blocked. And sometimes you get voted down. But > > that is an issue with vote decks as a whole, and isn't actually a > > problem for Voter Cap. If your deck is going, you can play Voter Cap. > > OK, we agree VC is not automatic. If the PRE vote deck is running, VC is quite automatic. It's a no brainer. If you play PRE voting you include VC, no matter what capacity your vampires have because it is utterly playable if your strategy pulls off. It is just icing on the cake, so to speak, not a means to enable the deck per se. Sure, VC can be countered. - DI - Delaying Tactics I remember folks saying RTI is not broken, it can be countered by - DI (similarity?) - Archon Investigation - Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemies Enemy Do you get the comparison? :) > > Nosferatu Royalty--there are multiples of these in the TWDA (mind you, > > my version that is in the TWDA has Presence in it :-). Sabbat > > Cardinal. Non presence backed All IC decks. They exist. And are > > playable. And don't have Voter Cap. And I don't think there is any > > discussion here of eliminating Voter Cap, just reducing its effect. > > Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political > action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at > the same time they deal pool damage to its target. I strongly disagree. I have a quite effective Nos voting deck, relying on princes and praxis seizures for vote dominance. However, no single Parity Shift or KRC or ConAg is used. Instead it amasses pool by breeding and ConBoon. It ousts with 1st Traditions(!). Believe me, decks not using Presence are viable. ConBoon, Ancient Influence, Political Stranglehold, Reins of Power make them playable. (And to a lesser extent Diversity, Anarch Salon, Elder Influence, Autarkis Persection, Finding the Path, etc.) I just had to jump in here. People are waaaaay too much relying on Voter Captivation. I think that's bad for the game. > > And if it is hard to pull off Voter Cap for a reasonable amount as you > > seem to think it is, isn't making it just give you 2 blood or 2 pool > > on any successful vote (like the best candidate for the change) an > > *improvement*? > > How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity > vampires can survive without Voter Captivation? Just like any other deck with high capacity vampires. Voting gives them additional options (see above). Anarch Salon is actually quite useable. If you need pool, generate it with master cards and/or blood generating actions (many have already been mentioned). VC is a no brainer and it is just a tad too powerful, which warrants a nerfing down of the card in one of the ways LSJ has already suggested. I particulary like the 2 blood / 2 pool version. Plain and simple. Elegant. You just have to like it. :) Carl

On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many > years (since 1994)? The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably indicates that it is a problem card. > And the fact VC is powerful does not mean it needs a card text change. Not necessarily. But sometimes cards are too powerful and need changing. > OK, we agree VC is not automatic. I never said it was. But it's cost is insignificant if your deck is doing what it is going to be doing anywah. > Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political > action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at > the same time they deal pool damage to its target. Umm, you asked for examples of non Presence based, large vampire vote decks that don't rely on Voter Cap. I provided an example. Why are you now trying to explain how it is somehow not a valid example? > How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity > vampires can survive without Voter Captivation? By Minion Tapping and refilling its vampires in a way other than with Voter Cap? With bleed bounce ot votes that give it pool? Is this some sort of trick question? -Peter

On 6 fév, 15:25, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 7:50 am, olivier.eni...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Stop Changing card!!! > > When was the last time a card got changed? Just go one the right page and you will see how much card's are changing it's hell for new players. > > > Voter capt is a good card but it's not so powerful. > > To play you need: > > 1 - to do an action that won't be blocked.This action is undirected > > and can be easely blocked by your prey or your predator. > > This is a cost of voting. Not Voter Cap. > > > 2 - to have the vote lock alone... or to be able to convince the > > people how has vote. > > Or, ya know, a handfull of Awe. How is a cheat card... no use... look how much hw you will find in vote deck that make 1st at tournement. [ quoted text not captured ] You use a really bad argument my freind. Just have a look at blood doll... it's use in 60% of deck. Its got million of use, and million of way to cicle it. Have a look at aqnother card like lost in the crowd. U can use it to do a milion action it will be easely cicle... You can even ask somone to try to blok a stupide action to help you to cicle it.... Voter capt need a vote that is passing.... It's nearly impossible to cicle it. I think this card is perfectly balance.... that's why it has never bring problem to the last 10 years of the game. If you wan't vote that cannot be used with voter captivation just make it playable by vampire with no access to presence.... If Ventrue Antitribe had acesse to special vote card, we will see new game emerge... If you change voter captivation you will see a lot of game die... I'm sorry to tell you. I'm for new deck. Not sanctonning the interesting one.

On Feb 6, 5:22 pm, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> writes: > > And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap? > > Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly? > > Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly > > toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of > > stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all > > the time. > > You have totally forgotten everyone's favourite vamp: Arika. > And her Ventrue-with-obfuscate friends. One of the strongest deck types in > the whole game. > > > VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something > > that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for > > the setites. > > I agree for the Setite part, but - Ventrue don't have defense?? > You're definitely smoking something much worse than crack. well when I'm thinking about defense I take 3 things into account : intercept/strong offensive combat/bloat. Ventrue have bloat, which should we suppress that? > > > My biggest fear is that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too > > much. > > Any rules change that weakens Arika has my full support. ;-) Weakening is not a solution for me, impoving other strategies is one.

Huruem wrote: >> They have untap and intercept, bounce, obedience, damage prevention, and combat >> ends. What do you see as lacking in their defensive capability? Bloat? They >> still have 5th Trad, Entrenching, Minion Tap, Con Boon, Parity Shift, and so on >> if they need it (that is, if all their primary defenses fail). > > Well, ventrue don't have any intercept, so to me, they have to > compensate it with bloat. Second Tradition is a lot of intercept. But even letting that go, bounce vote-back, prevent, and obedience cover the bases nicely. > In that respect 5th tradition and Entenching are not really > interresting actually, too many requirement, and not that efficient > compared to VC. VC efficiency is what makes it seen as too powerful, so yes, I would hope other effects of a similar nature as less efficient.

(1) I don't find the wording of ECU even slightly byzantine, on the contrary it is simple and straightforward. I don't think it even suffers from the appearance of having to work around a single other card (although, apparently, that was the situation) because it also prevents blood gain from Guru or Perfectionist, for example. If a card's design wants a blood cost that can't easily be offset, what's wrong with adding a few words that say so? That a vampire can still get back the cost by alternating ECU one turn, KRC with Voter Cap next turn is not a bad thing. If you can call and pass a referrendum by 8 votes every turn, and have VC on hand when you need it, you deserve to be full of blood! (2) Comparison to action cards or master cards that say "gain X" or "fill to capacity" is not germaine, as VC is an action modifier that requires things to have happened other than (but including) not being blocked. Taste, on the other hand seems an apt analogy. Yes, combat is much riskier than a referrendum, but blood gain is more immediately helpful to a fighter than to a voter. And Taste can 'pay' for combat cards that cost blood almost as well as VC 'pays' for votey cards that cost blood. (Sure, Taste is less likely to generate windfall profits because inflicting 10 damage doesn't generally return 10 blood. But excepting Awe, which I believe is the actual problem, it's easier to inflict 10 damage than to pass a referrendum by 10 votes.) The biggest difference seems to be that Taste is disciplineless. If the restriction of VC to Presence is a problem, neutering VC is not really a solution. (3) Voter Cap + Minion Tap: This has been with the game since day 1, and I like it. (4) Voter Cap + Awe: This is obviously broken, and easy to fix. Add a "no further action modifiers" clause to Awe. The longer a card has been around, and the more common it is in the hands of beginners and casual players, the worse the trouble caused by functional changes to its wording. (5) The awkwardness and delay of wrangling over how much a vote will pass by when it's clear enough that it will pass is the only strong argument for changing VC, and not a sufficient one in my opinion.

[ quoted text not captured ] Second tradition is only for the camarillas, what about the other sects ?!!

My opinion: VC doesn't require any change. It's not stronger today than it was few years ago. I haven't heard of any dominance of vote decks (based on presence or not). All the contrary, vote decks are imho becoming weaker with the new anti-vote cards. Limit VC to a simple blood gain, and I bet you won't see it in any deck. VC doesn't "negate" pool cost of political cards. If your deck uses VC to gain pool, then the penalty of the pool cost will hinder you anyway.

On Feb 6, 11:32 am, v.rip...@gmail.com wrote: > Let's face it. VC allows you to bloat, it is what it was designed for. So was 5th Tradition. > Now, is VC "broken" ? The only thing I'm sure of is that it has a > potentially a "stronger" effect than Art Scam or Entrenching, as long > as you manage to get your vote pass by more than 2. But it's also > harder to play. The only thing that is being claimed here is that A) Voter Cap is possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult to design other vote cards. > As is VC. It is only limited in it effect by the number of Awes you own. Yeah, sometimes Voter Cap will only get you 1 blood. Other times it will get you 11 blood and 2 pool. The upper limit of the effect of Voter Cap is infinite (bounded only by the size of your vampire). > -Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations) > Far less conditional than VC. They are self-sufficient, and doesn't > require more than 1 of the following: a discipline, a title, or a > simple condition (4 blood for Entrenching). > > -Limited in use (only once per game) > Only Giant's Blood is. Yes. And it it the only one that can completely refil a vampire, regardless of the size of the vampire. It seems likely that there is a reason for that. > -Take an action (that action does nothing but give you blood) > Right, that's why they're usually not played. Does it mean VC should > become as useless? No one is saying it should become useless. Just less useful. > *ironic* Right, VC is totally broken. I wonder why it's not in all > winning decks, though. I wonder even how the hell can anyone design a > winning vote deck without presence. And yet there are multiple people in this thread claiming that without Voter Cap, vote decks will be dead. Is the issue here that Voter Cap isn't a big deal (so it shouldn't be changed) or that Voter Cap is the only thing that keeps the otherwise totally feeble vote strategy alive (so it shouldn't be changed)? No one is claiming that Voter Cap is totally broken. Just that A) Voter Cap is possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult to design other vote cards. As fixing it would address both of these, it is probably a good idea. -Peter

On Feb 6, 11:40 am, "Olivier_PEREZ" <olivier.eni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just go one the right page and you will see how much card's are > changing it's hell for new players. Uh, I don't understand this scentence. Please. Provide examples of the last cards that were changed. Umm, a couple cards got banned from competetive play recently (Succubus Club and Dramatic Upheaval, which was a totally good move for competetive play). Ooh! I know--Anarch Revolt! I think that was the last card that got changed. 3 years ago? And that was also completely better for the game. > How is a cheat card... no use... look how much hw you will find in > vote deck that make 1st at tournement. Uhh, again, I don't understand you. I'm not, like, trying to make fun of your English. But you need to make some more sense here. Awe is a very strong card. Especially when combined with Voter Cap. > You use a really bad argument my freind. > Just have a look at blood doll... it's use in 60% of deck. Its got > million of use, and million of way to cicle it. The argument here is that A) Voter Cap is arguably too powerful and B) it makes designing other political cards difficult. Changing it would likely fix both of these. Is it necessarily too powerful? No. But it might be. And it certainly does hinder the designing of other political cards. > I think this card is perfectly balance.... that's why it has never > bring problem to the last 10 years of the game. Ok. But the lead game designer might very well disagree with you. -Peter

On Feb 5, 3:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > But if: > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful > and > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design > > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. Having digested this whole thread, I must say, I haven't seen anything said that (IMO) counters or contradicts either the assertions or the conclusion of this simple syllogism. I'm a n00b, but the above logic makes good sense to this n00b. Thus demonstrating that I do have at least two pennies to rub together, if nothing else. -Jason

[ quoted text not captured ] Ventrue is a Camarilla clan.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:xe2yh.16168$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] Meh. I wanted you to stop changing card function back on Tomb of Rameses III, so you know where I stand on this ;-). There's a big enough burden of entry on this game in terms of card text, without having continued functional changes to cards. If you decide VC is _that_ bad, just ban it, don't skunk it with a reduction in power. Re- writes are already at the level of "Damned Nuisance", as far as attracting new players to the game goes. Please, don't make it worse. Also IMO, VC isn't bad enough to warrant a re-write or down-grade. VC scales in magnitude of effect with the capacity of the minion that uses it. High cap = high risk => high reward, and thats the way it should be. VC does me little good in my Ventrue Law firm if'n I sit next to a wall deck or rush combat, and if people make sensible use of their Delaying Tactics (apply post-Awe, people), the bloat angle has a reasonable range of in-game controls possible. Nerfing VC will add fuel to the motivation towards weenie vote tactics, and away from larger cap concepts (IMO, not the preferred direction of change). DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many > > years (since 1994)? > > The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap > greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably > indicates that it is a problem card. As I already mentioned, it may not Voter Captivation, but the Design Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political actions. [...] > > Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political > > action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at > > the same time they deal pool damage to its target. > > Umm, you asked for examples of non Presence based, large vampire vote > decks that don't rely on Voter Cap. I provided an example. Why are you > now trying to explain how it is somehow not a valid example? Because you gave an example most clans without presence cannot use. > > How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity > > vampires can survive without Voter Captivation? > > By Minion Tapping and refilling its vampires in a way other than with > Voter Cap? And still be effective? LOL > With bleed bounce or votes that give it pool? Neither Setites nor Baali nor Ravnos nor Assamites (for instance) have either bleed bounce cards (provided by in-clan disciplines) or political actions that give them pool (other than Consanguineous Boon). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 6, 6:04 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 11:32 am, v.rip...@gmail.com wrote: [...] > The only thing that is being claimed here is that A) Voter Cap is > possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult to design > other vote cards. You forgot C) Lack of imagination ;-) > > As is VC. > > It is only limited in it effect by the number of Awes you own. The number of copies of a given card a player owns is irrelevant when discussing about game balance. > > -Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations) > > Far less conditional than VC. They are self-sufficient, and doesn't > > require more than 1 of the following: a discipline, a title, or a > > simple condition (4 blood for Entrenching). > > > -Limited in use (only once per game) > > Only Giant's Blood is. > > Yes. And it it the only one that can completely refil a vampire, > regardless of the size of the vampire. It seems likely that there is a > reason for that. No, VC does not refill a vampire per se. Renewed Vigor does. [...] > No one is claiming that Voter Cap is totally broken. Just that A) > Voter Cap is possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult > to design other vote cards. As fixing it would address both of these, > it is probably a good idea. And you forgot C) again: Lack of imagination >:-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans wrote: > On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >> >>> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many >>> years (since 1994)? >> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap >> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably >> indicates that it is a problem card. > > As I already mentioned, it may not Voter Captivation, but the Design > Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political > actions. Note that the ability to get around an obstacle is not the same as there being no obstacle. All of the designs you imagine the Design Team overlooking are no less possible with the obstacle removed than with it in place, and there's no indication that they are being overlooked; quite the contrary. Whether the Design Team imagines them is not in question, nor is that quesrtion useful toward reaching a conclusion about the question of VC being problematic.

On Feb 6, 7:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > >>> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many > >>> years (since 1994)? > >> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap > >> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably > >> indicates that it is a problem card. > > > As I already mentioned, it may not be Voter Captivation, but the Design > > Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political > > actions. > > Note that the ability to get around an obstacle is not the same as there being > no obstacle. Well, I made clear that I see no obstacle ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 6, 1:25 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Because you gave an example most clans without presence cannot use. You asked for a type of vote deck that didn't use Voter Cap and had big vampires. That was a successful archetype. I gave you one. Should I come up with more? > And still be effective? LOL Yep. > Neither Setites nor Baali nor Ravnos nor Assamites (for instance) have > either bleed bounce cards (provided by in-clan disciplines) or > political actions that give them pool (other than Consanguineous > Boon). And Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence and various other pool gaining votes. The Settites and Baali have Stealth built in (which is a plus over non stealth related Pre clans). The Ravnos and Assamites don't have Pre, so aren't really an issue here (i.e. they aren't in any way hindered by nerfing Voter Cap). And no one is indicating that Voter Cap shouldn't exist. Just that it should be downpowered some. -Peter > > -- > Damnans > > http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

Damnans wrote: > On Feb 6, 7:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Damnans wrote: >>> On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >>>>> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many >>>>> years (since 1994)? >>>> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap >>>> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably >>>> indicates that it is a problem card. >>> As I already mentioned, it may not be Voter Captivation, but the Design >>> Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political >>> actions. >> Note that the ability to get around an obstacle is not the same as there being >> no obstacle. > > Well, I made clear that I see no obstacle ;-) Perhaps it's a lack of imagination, then. >:->

On Feb 6, 7:45 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 1:25 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [...] > > > Neither Setites nor Baali nor Ravnos nor Assamites (for instance) have > > either bleed bounce cards (provided by in-clan disciplines) or > > political actions that give them pool (other than Consanguineous > > Boon). > > And Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence and various other > pool gaining votes. Specific exceptions, and therefore, non-valid excuses. > The Settites and Baali have Stealth built in > (which is a plus over non stealth related Pre clans). So do Assamites and Ravnos. But stealth does not automatically give them bounce cards or pool gaining political actions. > The Ravnos and > Assamites don't have Pre, so aren't really an issue here (i.e. they > aren't in any way hindered by nerfing Voter Cap). Yes they are. You are overlooking that there are a few Assamites and some Ravnos who have Presence and can therefore benefit from Voter Captivation in Free States Rant decks (as they do). > And no one is indicating that Voter Cap shouldn't exist. Just that it > should be downpowered some. I suggest that you play Presence Free States Rant decks without Voter Captivation as it currently is; or in the case you cannot, that you try to exercise your imagination ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 5, 6:48 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Costs/requirements and effects are the only options that should be > taken into account when designing new political actions (along with > game balance, of course). > > I am sure you can come up with enough innovative or not so innovative > requirements for new political actions. > Jumping through hoops is not the same as being creative. See also Card Limits. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

> But if: > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful > and > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design > > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. Voter cap is overly powerful when abused. Every good card in this game can and will be abused in the tournament environment. I consider tupdog decks with 13 torns and 13 IG's more broken than voter. And they don't need nearly the setup the politicians need, nor do they suffer the same amount of vulnerability to combat, intercept and so on. It's really hard to stay focused in a discussion the size of this one, but lets try. We should firstly study the 2 most common archetypes that use voter. 1) weenie pre 2) big cap pre Whatever you do to voter cap, weenie pre will still overly benefit from it. even if it goes to the gain blood/gain pool text. big cap pre we have only 2 real politicians : ventrue and toreador. the so much times mentioned problem with real big cap politics is the 4+ steps needed to get the blood gain from voter 1) have a political action in your hand 2) get to the referendum 3) have vote dominance 4) voter cap now, by these 4 steps, we should analyse how important voter cap is for the big cap politics. firstly, how to get to the referendum Toreador: Alacrity (very expensive), Creepshow Casino, Crocodile's tongue, toreador grand ball. Ventrue : Seduction (100% works), Creepshow Casino, Kiss of Ra (the action fails, but most of the time you will be getting rid of a nasty blocker if used properly) secondly, vote dominance Toreador: BO, Awe, Under the skin, Scalpel tongue, Scorn, Closed session Ventrue: BO, Awe, Closed session, Ventrue Headquarters After these 2 things, they seem balanced. Toreador has more options to gain vote dominance, Ventrue gets to the referendum more efectively and more easily (taking in account they can untap via freak drive + change of target and majesty while toreador dont have fortitude for all you guys who will tell me i forgot about the miracolous number of untaps both can do) But, as there always is a but, the real difference is in the vampires/disciplines. Firstly let's check out ventrue. FOR DOM PRE. A bit sterile, but killer for a politician. Nothing, and I mean nothing can touch them. FOR for those guys who will IG them, PRE for assamites and other wannabe-combat clans. The occasional tremere with thoughts betrayed will suck them dry, but they won't be burning them because the 2R agg is preventable. And when they don't have an anti-combat hand, they will just plainly obedience you. And, on top of all that, they have awesome group 1 mid cap princes. I mean, arika, and 7-7-8 for 10 votes without modifiers? Or on the other hand you have a slightly bigger crypt with OBF to ensure you you will get to those referendums. And they can Govern the Unaligned for a faster start, or sick bleeds, whichever comes first. And on top of that they can voter captivate, and they can restorate. Ok, in case of ventrue, voter cap IS broken. Toreador on the other hand, has got celerity and auspex. Their only combat defense is maneuvers and S:CE. And those two things don't come near to Obedience or fortitude. If you thought betray him, he's a sitting duck. Toreador, to have enough votes, has to go get Alexandra/Anneke. That's 21 pool worth of vampires. Play a master card here/there and he's on 5 pool. Minion tap, and you have an empty Alexandra or Anneke. I can explicitly confirm that in this point of the game, if their political action is blocked, or yawp courted, or they don't pull the card that helps them to actually SURVIVE, voter cap, they're dead meat in 80% of the cases. I mean, who can pack enough masters, political actions, political modifiers, second traditions, telepathic misdirections, combat ends, AND on top of that celerity, in a 90 card deck, for it to work? No one. So, the sum of the things is - The toreador is much more vulnerable to combat, has larger vampires, and voter isn't broken to them. The toreador politicians need it to survive. Oh, and heres a few cards everyone is forgetting to mention in this thread that cancel voter cap: Denial of Aphrodite's Favor Type: Combat/Reaction Requires: Dominate & Fortitude [dom][for] Cancel an action card a younger vampire plays that requires Presence [pre] as it is played. No cost is paid. Do not tap the acting vampire; that vampire cannot attempt the same action again this turn. [DOM][FOR] Cancel an action modifier or combat card a younger vampire plays that requires Presence [pre] as it is played. No cost is paid. Rarity: BL:R1 Iron Heart Type: Reaction Requires: Potence & Presence Cost: 1 blood [pot][pre] Cancel an action modifier that requires Presence [pre] as it is played. That card has no effect. No cost is paid. [POT][PRE] As [pot][pre] above, but cancel an action modifier that requires Dominate [dom]. Rarity: BL:R1 If you nerf voter cap, in a way you are suggesting in the earlier posts, you will be directly killing toreador politics. And encouraging the weenie stuff. Which, I personally, hate.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Awe is a very strong card. Especially when combined with Voter Cap. > -Peter > all this topic peter u have been telling: awe, awe, awe... is this a change VC or a change awe topic?

On Feb 6, 2:14 pm, lovre <lovre.grisog...@st.htnet.hr> wrote: > all this topic peter u have been telling: awe, awe, awe... > is this a change VC or a change awe topic? Awe is an example of a card that *should* be perfectly reasonable (it has a significant cost for a significant effect). But because of Voter Cap, the cost of Awe is likewise insignificant (pay X blood for 2X+1 votes, and then play Voter Cap to get back 2X+1 blood...)--if Voter Cap was tweaked, Awe would become a totally reasonable card. That is why I am bringing up Awe. 'Cause it is a perfect example of the collateral damage that Voter Cap causes. -Peter

On Feb 6, 2:02 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Specific exceptions, and therefore, non-valid excuses. This is silly. You asked for a deck design that uses politics and large vampires. But not Voter Cap. And now you are all like "Oh! But that doesn't count!". So we'll move on from that point. > So do Assamites and Ravnos. But stealth does not automatically give > them bounce cards or pool gaining political actions. No. But they also don't have Presence. So changing Voter Cap won't really hurt them. > Yes they are. You are overlooking that there are a few Assamites and > some Ravnos who have Presence and can therefore benefit from Voter > Captivation in Free States Rant decks (as they do). But you are conversely overlooking the Assamites and Ravnos who have Dominate or AUS for bleed bounce. Who can protect the deck justas much as the ones with PRE. > I suggest that you play Presence Free States Rant decks without Voter > Captivation as it currently is; or in the case you cannot, that you > try to exercise your imagination ;) I suspect that it'll still work reasonably well even with a downgraded Voter Cap. -Peter

>frustration's Peter.... dont ask me what's with the 's-es something is wrong with my head.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 6, 2:14 pm, lovre <lovre.grisog...@st.htnet.hr> wrote: >> all this topic peter u have been telling: awe, awe, awe... >> is this a change VC or a change awe topic? > > Awe is an example of a card that *should* be perfectly reasonable (it > has a significant cost for a significant effect). But because of Voter > Cap, the cost of Awe is likewise insignificant (pay X blood for 2X+1 > votes, and then play Voter Cap to get back 2X+1 blood...)--if Voter > Cap was tweaked, Awe would become a totally reasonable card. That is > why I am bringing up Awe. 'Cause it is a perfect example of the > collateral damage that Voter Cap causes. > > -Peter Well, the most obvious soulution would be to make Voter Cap R0, something like they did with Clio's Kiss. <3. I get your frustration's Peter, but it really isn't all that strong as you make it look. Sometimes, when the table is good for the politician, it's gona be awesome. Other times, when his shuffle will be crap, it's gonna be a dead card 75% of the time. And sometimes he will not have table dominance. If you're so afraid of voter cap, play bigger vamps with some votes of your own, and just say no. In Croatia, we play relatively big crypts, there's always some votes around the table, and we just say NO to politics. Someone blocks some politics, some don't pass, and yes there is the occasional awe+voter. But, it can get canceled, the political action can get blocked, you can pack vamps with votes, you can teach your metagame to say NO!, and you cant expect for 6+6 cards in a 90 card deck to always be in sync, especially with all the trouble you have to go to to GET TO A GOOD VOTER CAP.

On Feb 6, 1:32 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > The number of copies of a given card a player owns is irrelevant when > discussing about game balance. Well, this isn't actually true. Trying to justify game balance by saying "a person will only have a couple of these" is faulty logic. On the other hand, assuming someone has all copies of a given card they need to really push something is how card balance is maintained. If one needs a lot of Awes to really break Voter Cap, it is wise to assume that somone has a lot of Awes to break it when discussing how the card might be overpowered. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 6, 2:14 pm, lovre <lovre.grisog...@st.htnet.hr> wrote: >> all this topic peter u have been telling: awe, awe, awe... >> is this a change VC or a change awe topic? > > Awe is an example of a card that *should* be perfectly reasonable (it > has a significant cost for a significant effect). But because of Voter > Cap, the cost of Awe is likewise insignificant (pay X blood for 2X+1 > votes, and then play Voter Cap to get back 2X+1 blood...)--if Voter > Cap was tweaked, Awe would become a totally reasonable card. That is > why I am bringing up Awe. 'Cause it is a perfect example of the > collateral damage that Voter Cap causes. > > -Peter > > then change awe. i have a good tori deck with no KRC or other damaging PA, 6 VC and ONLY 2 awe. remove awe, its ok! remove VC and its over and out.

On Feb 5, 9:17 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Voter Captivation requires a vampire with pre/PRE, then: > 1. a vote card > 2. (probably) some level of stealth > 3. an Awe or Bewitching Oration 3 is not true at all. I've played and have seen played several decks for which Bewitching Oration isn't "this vote passes" so much as it is "gain 4 blood". > 4. success in the referendum > 5. the Voter Cap > Have dedicated-Combat decks been so weak that Alastor, Dogs of War, > Perpetual Care, Dragonbound, Carver's Meat Packing, Frontal Assault, > Haqim's Law: Judgement, Yawp Court, Red List and Trophies, and all the new > 'Action: (D) may enter combat' cards needed to be created to enhance their > effectiveness, and dedicated-Vote decks are so strong that Voter > Captivation all by itself needs to be changed? I don't see it. > That's just it, though. Voter Cap may well be preventing voting from becoming a better strategy. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Feb 6, 8:33 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 1:32 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > The number of copies of a given card a player owns is irrelevant when > > discussing about game balance. > > Well, this isn't actually true. Trying to justify game balance by > saying "a person will only have a couple of these" is faulty logic. That's what I was criticising. I may have misunderstood you. [...] -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:33:05 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: >> I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out >> interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they >> couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to. > > There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the > choice. So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so not > really a matter of "choice" at all. > > But if: > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful > and > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design > > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. I'm not sure this is the case. I'd add: 3) if VC's existance enables a game-breaking or overly powerful deck type. Which is not the case. In fact, even with VC, fattie PRE Vote decks in general are only the third or fourth best play (behind walls, weenies and maybe powerbleed). If I'm looking at the statement that VC negates political card blood and pool costs, I'm also not fully there. The cost is still existing - the only way VC is fully offsetting it is when the vote passes with overkill. Which can be arranged, but requires setup. It's like saying that the existance of Taste fully offsets combat card costs. It might be considered to try to balance votes, like with Vox Senis, except in a more play-worthy way, giving more votes to players who don't want to focus their decks on politics, and making it more balanced. Plus, if VC gets trimmed, and PTO stays, I'll be pretty pissed at how design team fixes something that is giving them inconvenience instead of fixing something that regularly pisses off half of the player base. :) -- Regards, Daneel

I just want to weigh in STRONGLY AGAINST changing Voter Captivation. Political decks are not the strongest decks out there, Voter Capping political decks are not necessarily the strongest political decks. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, coming up with votes that could cause more pool damage than current votes is the wrong direction. ConAg is a very powerful card, balanced by the fact that it becomes almost worthless in the end game. Parity Shift is a very powerful card, balanced by its title and pool requirement (to oust with Parity Shift you have to first put yourself in danger of being ousted - although Parity Shift + 2x KRC in a turn is a recipe for ousting in 1 turn so is 4x KRC with no title or pool requirement). Voting doesn't need more instant pool damage effects. Instead, voting needs new avenues to enhance other game mechanics and dealmaking, to replace the banned Kindred Restructure and so on. Also, and this is only a marginal side argument: of LSJ's three proposed options, the 3rd is simplest: pre: Gain two blood. PRE: Gain two pool. I think its not a justified card change. But also the direction it goes in seems to be away from more balanced voting and towards supporting weenie votes (because using Voter Cap rewards using high capacity vampires - a _good_ design feature). Since weenie voting is an arguably problematic deck archetype, I don't think the world's various metagames would benefit from a card change that encouraged the move towards weenie voting instead of large tap and cap decks. I mean, really, people don't complain about Tap and Cap decks being broken. They make nice targets for combat decks, and they can be summarily ousted by big early bleeds and remain vulnerable to stealth or swarm bleed. So, to wrap up. 1) Please don't change our venerable old Voter Captivations. 2) Please don't add even bigger pool damage cards or easier to use ones. 3) Please do add new interesting voter dynamics and political actions. Again I suggest clan specific political actions as one avenue to explore. I think the discussion on "interesting" restrictions has also been useful. I wouldn't mind having a small set of new political action cards that banned Presence (and Melpominee?) action modifiers. Some with capacity restrictions wouldn't go amiss either, especially if all of them didn't *directly* affect pool.

On Feb 6, 10:19 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > The idea is that the "fix" to Voter Cap would be chosen so as to not weaken > decks that should be viable "too much". > This is important, I think. The thing is, voting decks can be very strong, but they are certainly not "obviously overpowered" at this point. Most good voting decks make use of Voter Cap (that is, those that are capable of winning fairly reliably), to some degree or other. So if Voter Cap is reduced in power, it seems likely that voting in general will need to gain some other advantages at the same time, otherwise politcal actions may well be absent from the tournament scene for years. Some of the ideas for "more versatile votes" could certainly help there. And if voting strategies are given a boost to make up for the loss of Voter Cap, then we may well see some more varied voting decks being played - such as the ones without Presence, since they couldn't use Voter Cap before anyway. Something like Assamites with Alamut, maybe more Lasombra voters that don't graft on presence (not that they were extremely weak before), Akunanse bruise & vote, etc... Maybe Daughters voting will finally be viable (I've tried so hard, but it just tends to suck for one reason or other)... even though they have Presence for VC, their low capacity limits its usefulness, and their lack of inherent votes can be hard to overcome. It all depends on what kind of boost is given to voting, and to what degree. To me, none of that is necessarily a bad thing, but I think that the solution to Voter Cap is more complex than simply saying, "okay, X is 2... we don't have to worry about that anymore." Incidentally, the Misdirection equation was solved with X = 1, the Voter Captivation equation may soon be solved with X = 2. I wonder what other constants the V:TES universe holds. Perhaps the Eldritch Glimmer constant? Planck's addendum to Minion Tap? Newton's Law of Lightning Reflex Motion? Just curious... ;)

LSJ wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. >> >> So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? > > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is > the number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. > [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. > > Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the > referendum). > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently > fizzles on. > LSJ - Please don't change the text of Voter Cap. Others have already expressed much better and in more detail than I can how I feel about whether VC is too powerful. I don't think it is. I notice that many of those who are against downgrading VC also tend to win alot (Darby Keeney, Olivier Perez, Huruem, Damnans). That may have nothing to do with this argument, or it may indicate that those who tend to win like to see good, powerful cards. Use that observation as you will. But, I can see that there are other posters (some of whom also win) who tend to be very vocal on this board seem to side with your point of view that VC is too powerful. So it looks like VC will get nerfed one way or another. Here is my request: If you want to nerf VC, please ban it and then print a different card with the effect you would like. Do not change the text of the card. It really is hard on newbies. Please. Thanks, chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

"Huruem" <Huruem_...@hotmail.com> writes: > > > VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something > > > that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for > > > the setites. > > > > I agree for the Setite part, but - Ventrue don't have defense?? > > You're definitely smoking something much worse than crack. > > well when I'm thinking about defense I take 3 things into account : > intercept/strong offensive combat/bloat. Ventrue have bloat, which > should we suppress that? Ah, so you consider strong offensive combat a defense. This is how I see it: The Ventrue are the masters of *defensive* combat. First, you have to get through Obedience. If you get through Obedience, you'll eat Majesty. If you get through Majesty, they'll play Fortitude cards. They defend against votes by outvoting everybody. If you bleed them, they'll Deflect. So they have a strong defense against each and every one of the three classic offensive strategies. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

LSJ wrote: > Darby Keeney wrote: > > Question: Is Voter Captivation really that dominant in a competitive > > environment? > [...] > > So the perception of "overpoweredness" most come from something other > > than the competitive environment. > > Yes. See my initial post. Bloat, both in blood and pool, as needed, is, > inherently, strong. The easier the bloat, the stronger it is. VC bloat is ease > personified. Namely: do nothing extra, just play the card whenever your deck is > working at all. So what? If the end result is that there is no disruption of competitive balance and no disruption of gameplay, then how is it overpowered? > > I understand that 5th Tradition was nerfed for that first reason > > alone. But 5th Traditon/Forgotten Labyrinth was much easier to pull > > off than Vote/Forgotten Labyrinth/Awe (table-talk)/Voter Cap - so I > > expect a greater reward from Voter Cap than 5th Tradition. Yes, I > > maintain this despite claims that Voter Cap is a "freebie" because you > > can play it when your deck does what it is supposed to - pass votes. > > That last sentence is at odds with the preceding. > 5th/FL is a sideline - and end unto itself. It takes away resources from the > primary goal of the deck (primarily the action). > Vote/Fl/Awe is the deck, not the bloat. Not a sideline. > The VC is the freebie that tags bloat onto that. Old 5th + FL is not a sideline. It is an effective strategy unto itself, as the blood gained from 5th is used to make more minions, and therefore more offense. It is done in a more card-efficient manner than Vote + FL + VC, and presumably that is why it was nerfed and VC (so far) hasn't been. > I have seen VC used extensively enough to see that it is freebie bloat. > The hidden costs of VC are not high. When they are high, they amount to scarcely > more than nothing (kicking the legs out from under a dead horse doesn't slow the > horse down). I have seen VC used extensively enough to see that it is effective bloat, yet not disruptive to competitive balance or gameplay. At which point, this part of the argument devolves into "my experience versus your experience", since a lot of us have seen VC used just as extensively as you have. Since you're the developer, you're free to "win" that argument and change the card as you see fit. > Encouragement to exploration is not needed. I have explored them, as has been > noted already, and will continue to do so, as should be obvious. > > Moreover, I would also like to explore the more direct costing facilities > available to every other aspect of the game. So, what you're really saying is that you've convinced yourself that Voter Cap is overpowered, and you're just publicly letting us know in advance that you're going to change it. - Ben Peal

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > So, what you're really saying is that you've convinced yourself that > Voter Cap is overpowered, and you're just publicly letting us know in > advance that you're going to change it. I see IRC isn't the only vent for hyperbole.

On Feb 6, 10:25 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > As I already mentioned, it may not Voter Captivation, but the Design > Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political > actions. I strongly disagree. The design team for this game has repeatedly demonstrated their ability to create interesting, new card ideas, new mechanics, all while keeping the impossibly difficult balance of the game. Damnans, it sounds like you think Voter Cap is not an obstacle to creating new vote cards with the standard costing mechanics for actions (i.e. blood cost.) It also sounds like you think weakening Voter Cap will reduce the effectiveness of big cap voters, which is an interesting deck type that shouldn't be weakened. On the latter point, I agree with you, and perhaps the solution is to both weaken Voter Cap, and at the same time, create cards that helps big-cap voters. Here are some card ideas that might be good. The Rich Get Richer Action Modifier / Reaction Play during a referendum [Action Mod]/[Reaction]: This vampire gains 1 vote, and may burn 6 blood to place this card on the vampire. Burn this card at the end of the action to give this vampire 6 blood from the blood bank. If the result of the referendum matched the way this vampire voted, this vampire gains 2 more blood when this card is burned. The Rich Get Richer 2 Action Modifier / Reaction Requires a (titled?) vampire of at least 8 capacity Play during a referendum before votes are cast [Action Mod]/[Reaction]: If the referendum passes, all vampires of the same capacity or greater than this vampire gain 1 blood from the blood bank. The Rich Get Richer 3 Action Modifier / Reaction Play during a referendum [Action Mod]/[Reaction]: This vampire gains 1 vote. The ready vampire with the most blood gains 2 blood from the blood bank. If there is a tie, each tied vampire gains 1 blood instead. The Rich Get Richer 4 Political Action Successful referendum means each methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. For every point of capacity above 6 of their chosen vampire, each methuselah draws one card (without discarding.) Then, each methuselah moves cards from their hand to the top of their library until they are at their hand size. Ira

On Feb 6, 2:02 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 7:45 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > And no one is indicating that Voter Cap shouldn't exist. Just that it > > should be downpowered some. > > I suggest that you play Presence Free States Rant decks without Voter > Captivation as it currently is; or in the case you cannot, that you > try to exercise your imagination ;) I suggest that you try playing Enkidu Free States Rant and ignore the Presence aspect entirely :). Witness1 -believe the lie.

What I find interesting about voter cap, is that if there were a vote that would do the same thing, I would definitely stack a whole batch of them in most vote decks anyway - even if the vote still had the [pre/PRE] requirements. I.e. If there was a card like: Vote Captivation Political Action [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the number of votes by which the referendum passes. [PRE] As above, but move up to 2 of those blood counters to your pool instead of this vampire. I'd still think it was a fairly powerful card. The fact that Voter Cap is attached to a mechanic that a [pre] vote deck is going to have regardless, is, as LSJ points out, incredibly powerful. At the moment, nothing I've seen bloats as well, or as consistently, as a good [pre] vote deck. Voting does have the downside of having to contend with the rest of the table, but there are just so many types of decks around, and especially with v few/no votes, that many vote decks have almost no trouble passing there votes anyway. More often the threat is having everyone gang up on them and beat them into submission. That being said, the biggest reason why I think voter cap is considered powerful is thanks to two other cards which it is often used in combination with. The first is Minion Tap - which leads to major bloatage, and the second is Awe - which helps you pass your votes in huge margins. In fact, if I were to suggest a change to make Voter Cap less powerful, it would actually be to nerf (I hope George Lucas doesn't sue us all for this term) Minion Taps - maybe make it so that you can only pull a max of 3/4 blood, or restrict it to smaller cap vampires (less than 8 cap), or tap the vampire to move blood, or even a clause that says the vampire cannot gain blood for the rest of the meth's turn (blood gained goes to blood bank instead). It would help slow the ridiculous bloatage of voter cap decks. I don't often see many other decks that use minion taps that really capitalise on Minion Taps as much as Voter Cap decks, and for most of them, pulling 3/4 blood off, or waiting a turn, would be fine anyway. We all know the ridiculousness comes in when you can consistently minion tap Arika for 10, call a vote, bewitching, and voter cap all the way to her capacity again. And when there's a horde of 3rd Traditions and you are calling consag boons, you could gain more than half of your starting pool amount easily in 1 turn with only 1 minion voting. I'd like to find any reason why someone would consider such a feat, that is so readily accessible to any [pre] vote deck, to not be powerful. Aren't there enough ways for vote decks to bloat anyway? I mean, there's consag boons, anarch salon, anathema (which is also a v powerful bloat mechanism), ancient influence, Autarkis Persecution, Diversity, Finding the Path, Parity Shift, Political Flux (potentially), Political Stanglehold, Reins of Power, Tithings, Transfer of Power & Honor the Elders. I grant that many of these don't show up in decks (and are here for the sake of completeness), but others are in most vote decks I know, especially big cap ones. I also play a v powerful [obf] Ventrue deck, so I am v familiar with the ridiculousness of the card. No other deck I have ever built (well, since the fifth tradition change-over days) has ever had close to the amount of bloatage I get off of that deck - which is why it is one of the few decks that I keep built (without changing/tweaking), and it's almost certainly the longest standing deck I've got (about twice as long as any other deck I've got built). For some people who have tons of cards and decks aplenty, this might not mean much, but I am very fickle with my decks, and I change them constantly, that is, with the exception of that one. In short: I wouldn't like to see the card changed, but I do think a change would be justified.

On Feb 6, 8:28 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 2:02 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > Specific exceptions, and therefore, non-valid excuses. > > This is silly. You asked for a deck design that uses politics and > large vampires. But not Voter Cap. And now you are all like "Oh! But > that doesn't count!". So we'll move on from that point. OK, build a Free States Rant deck the pool gain of which is based on Ancient Influence and Political Stranglehold. How many copies of these cards would you pack in such a deck? Note that both cards can only be played once per game. So the are not a reliable source of pool gain. [...] > > Yes they are. You are overlooking that there are a few Assamites and > > some Ravnos who have Presence and can therefore benefit from Voter > > Captivation in Free States Rant decks (as they do). > > But you are conversely overlooking the Assamites and Ravnos who have > Dominate or AUS for bleed bounce. Who can protect the deck justas much > as the ones with PRE. And where is their essential pool gain? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <eqal2e$lca$1...@ss408.t-com.hr>, lovre <lovre.g...@st.htnet.hr> wrote: > then change awe. i have a good tori deck with no KRC or other damaging > PA, 6 VC and ONLY 2 awe. remove awe, its ok! remove VC and its over and out. If Voter Cap gets reduced in power, Awe suddenly becomes a totally reasonable card (which currently, it isn't so much). And no one is talking about *removing* Voter cap. Just reducing it's power to reasonable levels. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <eqakr9$kpv$1...@ss408.t-com.hr>, dome <le...@email.htnet.hr> wrote: > I get your frustration's Peter, but it really isn't all that strong as > you make it look. I'm not frustraded. Nor do I think Voter Cap is incredibly wildly overpowered. But it is arguably too powerful (and always has been). And it does limit the designer's ability to make other vote cards. So tweaking it makes perfect sense. And if it turns out to be too much of a downgrade to voting strategies, it would be easy to introduce other cards that fill in the gap that don't have the same collateral impact as Voter cap currently does. > and you cant expect for > 6+6 cards in a 90 card deck to always be in sync, especially with all > the trouble you have to go to to GET TO A GOOD VOTER CAP. So play 12 Voter Cap and 12 Awe. I'm playing a deck like this right now, and lemme tell you, it does great. The Awe and the Voter Caps? Never dead cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 6, 3:07 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > But if: > > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful > > and > > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design > > > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. > > I'm not sure this is the case. I'd add: > > 3) if VC's existance enables a game-breaking or overly powerful deck type. So we should never change cards to improve the game unless they enable overpowered deck types? What if instead of enabling overpowered types they stifle otherwise reasonable strategies into oblivion? > Which is not the case. In fact, even with VC, fattie PRE Vote decks in > general are only the third or fourth best play (behind walls, weenies > and maybe powerbleed). > > If I'm looking at the statement that VC negates political card blood > and pool costs, I'm also not fully there. Pool costs not so much - because there's a hard cap on the amount of pool you can gain with VC, so when you're stuck with a net gain of 1 pool instead of 2 it matters. But blood costs are pretty much a joke, because it's not terribly hard in a PRE deck to make a vote pass by ridiculous margins (once it gets to the floor). > The cost is still existing > - the only way VC is fully offsetting it is when the vote passes with > overkill. Which can be arranged, but requires setup. It's like saying > that the existance of Taste fully offsets combat card costs. Taste is capped by the amount of blood on the opposing minion. While this isn't what I'd normally call a "hard" cap, there's an upper bound to the amount you can gain back no matter how many damage increasers you play on your strike. VC has no such thing - every additional vote is always an additional blood. Similarly, if VC were capped at the number of minions who cast votes against the referendum, or half the capacity of the acting vampire, or the amount of pool/blood burned as a result of the referendum, it would be far more comparable to Taste. > It might > be considered to try to balance votes, like with Vox Senis, except in > a more play-worthy way, giving more votes to players who don't want > to focus their decks on politics, and making it more balanced. There's been a number of cards in recent sets (Irregular Protocol, Confusion of the Eye) that seem to be addressing some of these things. Most of them are viewed as substandard replacements for Delaying Tactics/DI, and I'm pretty sure we don't need anything *better* than Delaying Tactics to stop it. If we *are* going to see cards added to the game just to give players more votes to cut back on Voter Captivations with (and then expect people to play with these cards specifically to cut down on Voter Captivations so that political cards with blood costs actually matter), doesn't that suggest that VC should be changed instead? > Plus, if VC gets trimmed, and PTO stays, I'll be pretty pissed at how > design team fixes something that is giving them inconvenience instead of > fixing something that regularly pisses off half of the player base. :) That's probably an overstatement, but the point may hold. witness1 -believe the lie.

In article <1170774587....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote: > Don't forget: > > C) The current text leads to irritating and time consuming table talk > and mental arithmetic that can easily cause games to time out, or > worse, become dreadfully boring. Heh. I think this is a totally valid argument, myself. But I don't think it is going to get us that far :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1170791579.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > That's what I was criticising. I may have misunderstood you. Heh. Likely :-) Yeah, my implication there was that if someone has all the cards in the world, Awe/Voter Cap becomes a wildly effective strategy. A significant limit to the power of Voter Cap is, in fact, how many Awes you own. If you have 3 or 4 Awe, Voter Cap is much less useful than if you have 15 Awes. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Elsewhere in this thread you wrote: > But if: > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful > and > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design > > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. Despite Darby's illustration (that you appear to agree with) that VC hasn't shown itself to have disrupted the environment of competitive play, you've stated that VC is overpowered. You've also stated repeatedly that VC is an impediment to further design and development of the game. So, you've already convinced yourself of both 1) and 2), ergo you've convinced yourself that VC needs to be changed. This isn't hyperbole. It's what you wrote. In the case of 1), I disagree. From my own experience and from the information we have about the competitive environment, it is clear to me that VC is a very strong, but not overpowered card. In the case of 2), I see that VC can be a hindrance to design, but there are many other options for costing cards that can be explored. It wouldn't be jumping through hoops - it would be simply exploring other options. - Ben Peal

In article <NzRxh.47516$AK1....@newsfe11.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > We should consider the possibility that Voter Cap avoided the tweaks > because it isn't TOO powerful. That is certainly a possibility. As I have said a bunch, I'm not claiming that Voter Cap is concretely too powerful. But it certainly is arguably too powerful (when compared to other card that do a similar thing--give your vampires blood--especially when the cost to play the card is factored in). And it does certainly hinder the design team in their designing of other political cards (which would not so much be the case if the card got nerfed some). > Voter Captivation requires a vampire with pre/PRE, then: > 1. a vote card > 2. (probably) some level of stealth > 3. an Awe or Bewitching Oration > 4. success in the referendum > 5. the Voter Cap Sure. But if you are playing a Pre vote deck, you are already relying on the first 4 cards just to go anywhere. The added cost of the 5th card (the Voter Cap) is fairly minimal considering the incredibly huge potential payoff. > Have dedicated-Combat decks been so weak that Alastor, Dogs of War, > Perpetual Care, Dragonbound, Carver's Meat Packing, Frontal Assault, > Haqim's Law: Judgement, Yawp Court, Red List and Trophies, and all the new > 'Action: (D) may enter combat' cards needed to be created to enhance their > effectiveness, and dedicated-Vote decks are so strong that Voter > Captivation all by itself needs to be changed? I don't see it. Possibly. I'm unconvinced that power vote decks would suffer all that much by a nerfing of Voter Cap (I'm envisioning the simple pre: gain 2 blood/PRE: gain 2 pool on any successful referendum version). Arika is still going to rip up the table. Mind you though, on your fist comment, with all the upgrades to dedicated combat, I can certainly see an argument to be made to make Torn Signpost less effective :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> So play 12 Voter Cap and 12 Awe. I'm playing a deck like this right now, > and lemme tell you, it does great. The Awe and the Voter Caps? Never > dead cards. Well, you should be atleast a bit careful about those 12+12. That's a third of a deck only for political modifiers. With political actions + masters you must be closing to something dangerously near to "i'll get fucked up if I get any combat around me". And for someone who protests about voter+awe being overpowered, I can see that you're not afraid to use them. Just be sure to use them for some time, and see the metagame flow around you and tear apart a deck that uses 24 cards just for awe+voter. For god's sake.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:22:20 -0800, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >Here is my request: If you want to nerf VC, please ban it and then print >a different card with the effect you would like. Do not change the text >of the card. It really is hard on newbies. So say we all. :>

On Feb 3, 9:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > <a...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > >news:1170507405.8...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > New vote cards can have a "high stakes" effect > > > Example: > > Allocate 5 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful > > referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. > > If this referendum is unsuccessful, burn two pool (or burn 1 blood on > > each of your vamps, or something like that). > > > What do you think? > > > nope. A cost shouldn't be as easily circumvented as 'play with Voter Cap, > > which you will probably be doing anyway' > > How does Voter Cap get played on an unsuccessful referendum? > > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with > costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual > acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option > of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. Interesting that you think that Voter Cap is the barrier to scaling up the power of voting cards. > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, unblockable, > restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in its primary goal in > the first place). And then it compounds the effect with pool gain to boot. > > Other comparable effects: > Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. > Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. > Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. > > The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, I think > we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what you were doing > anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even when damage is > prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never gives pool, and it's > harder to get the same range of gain with damage compared to vote margins, and > vote margins don't incur the same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what > your deck does" is typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for vote > decks than for combat decks). Taste of Vitae make combat viable. > Thoughts? Voter Captivation is a scaled effect with a greater effect benefited by vampires of greater capacity. The game suffers signifigantly from an imbalance in power towards many minions being more viable than a few minions. More minions means more actions, and more actions means more ousting power, and more ousting power results in quicker games. One of the fundamental problems that the original designers saw in the game was that the game took too long to play and was too complicated. Quicker games are a result of more minions acting. Things that slow games down are intercept, combat and bloating. So to make games quicker intercept must be toned down, combat must be streamlined and bloating must be eliminated. Perhaps that wasn't what you were asking for? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In article <MPG.2033186db...@news.t-com.hr>, dome <le...@email.htnet.hr> wrote: > Well, you should be atleast a bit careful about those 12+12. That's a > third of a deck only for political modifiers. Yep. And it is a pretty devestating deck (a speed obf/PRE settite deck). Heck, there are even more modifiers in there (Bewitchings, too). > With political actions + > masters you must be closing to something dangerously near to "i'll get > fucked up if I get any combat around me". Yup. Once and a while you get shut down and killed. That happens to every deck sometimes. That doesn't mean that Awe/Voter Cap isn't super effective. > And for someone who protests about voter+awe being overpowered, I can > see that you're not afraid to use them. Why would I be? The way you figure out what is busted is by playing them till you are sure. Just 'cause something is overpowered, it doesn't mean it is a bad idea to play it. You just play it till it gets fixed, and use the play evidence to get it fixed. > Just be sure to use them for > some time, and see the metagame flow around you and tear apart a deck > that uses 24 cards just for awe+voter. For god's sake. This statement completely confuses me. I mean, Like, I totally don't understand what you are saying. I think that the combo of Awe and Voter Cap is an overpowered combination. You don't come to this conclusion by *not* playing the combination. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1170796526.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > OK, build a Free States Rant deck the pool gain of which is based on > Ancient Influence and Political Stranglehold. How many copies of these > cards would you pack in such a deck? Note that both cards can only be > played once per game. So the are not a reliable source of pool gain. Again, this is not what got us here. I mentioned that there were other viable, non presence based vote decks that used big vampires. You said "like what?". And I gave you a perfectly legitimate example. Now your "like what?" has transformed into "But I want this specific example to prove my point!" Which is kinda silly. Maybe a Free States Rant deck *would* suffer from a weakened Voter Cap. I can live with that. Maybe it would just require a bit of re-adjustment to make it go. > And where is their essential pool gain? Minion Tap. Just like before. It'd just take a bit more jiggering to refill. And having bounce available means that you need less essential pool gain anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1170796350.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > In fact, if I were to suggest a change to make Voter Cap less > powerful, it would actually be to nerf (I hope George Lucas doesn't > sue us all for this term) Minion Taps See, this is again a convoluted way to fix a problem that is clearly the Voter Cap and not the Minion Tap. Minion Tap is a powerful card that has a significant cost (take blood of your vampire, which makes you stronger but the vampire weaker) and in conjunction with *not* Voter Cap is perfectly reasonable--it takes a lot of effort to refill that vampire (taking dubious actions like Restoration or Entrenching or 5th tradition, none of which hurt your prey; going into combat with not much blood which is risky in and of itself; luckily having and getting to play first the Giant's Blood). That Voter Cap just lets you virtually instantly refill your vampire for, like, nothing, all while hurting your prey at the same time is likely the issue here. > I grant that many of these don't > show up in decks (and are here for the sake of completeness), but > others are in most vote decks I know, especially big cap ones. They don't show up specifically 'cause Voter Cap is just so much better. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 6, 7:56 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. Of all the options you put forth I like this one the best because it stops the math calculations which will speed up the game and balance out Awe. Or what Ira suggested without the before votes are cast. [pre] If the vote passes, the acting vampire gains 2 blood. [PRE] As above, and gain 1 pool. If the motivation to make the change is to open up more options for voting by making it easier to balance cards with costs then that seems pretty reasonable to me. In saying that, it's quite a big change for newer players to handle so if you do change it that much it might be worth printing some and distribute to the players somehow because it's a pretty significant change. Simon

[ quoted text not captured ] Well my freind you don't no a lot of deck then... There is deck gaining pool much better than voter captivation deck... Hutzilopotchli or Cyble Great beast I ofen finish the game with more than 50 pool. Legacy of Pander... Usually more than 35 pool. Palla Grande if it works usually more than 40 pool and often 60 or more.

Let's just stop opposing feeling. Can we chek how much Voter Captivation there is in all the winning deck list of lassombra. around 45? And for another card.. Govern for exemple... 150? Blood dool... 300 Minion tap 250... Voter captivation is not to powerful. But it's a key card of the game. Like govern, blood dool, Majesty...

In message <R8Pxh.16054$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out >> interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they >> couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to. > >There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the >choice. So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so >not really a matter of "choice" at all. No, that's not true. If, as you've suggested elsewhere in the thread, political actions and politics in general have become stagnant *and* that that stagnancy is dependent on VC, and the only way to resolve that is to give cards a cost and therefore nerf VC to allow that to be meaningful, then I'd tend to disagree. The *other* choice is there to create other cards that do radically different things. For whatever reason, the amount of originality in political actions in the WW era has been low, in my opinion. Note that this is specifically political actions. There has been a veritable mountain of creativity in other areas - Events, Nights of Reckoning, non-unique vampires, the Bloodlines and the mountain of amazingly cool stuff there, Anarch three-ways, dual-discipline cards, Trifles - but political actions have just been left alone. And I don't think it's just because of cost. I've just done a very swift search for political actions in the WW era. As I see it: Alastor - the cheap equipment is good, but it's a sort of Archon/Templar Anarch Salon - pool and blood gain Auto-da-Fé - mini-PTO or poll loss Blood Seige - "stealing" a title, which is kind of cool but quite sketchy due to needing a Prince out Brinksmanship - brand new, and quite interesting, with a 1 pool cost Crusades - several new ones. More of the same, but the "untap in your discard phase" thing is quite cute, instead of increased capacity Deploy the Hand - damage to a minion, which is similar to Free States Rant (though different in execution) Diversity - a variant on Con Boon Dogs of War - new and cool, but it's another enter combat vote Eldest Command Undeath - PTO Finding the Path - sort of interesting, though it's mostly just pool gain fiddling, and quite weak Firebrand - actually very cool. It has the vote bolstering angle, but it also has the cool new untap angle. Free States Rant - good and interesting when it was introduced Hand Intervention - potentially cool, though a bit restricted. New for politics. Hierophant - Camarilla Exemplary and a vote booster Honor the Elders - pool and blood gain Overseer - a twist on Praxis Seizures, but in essence just a vote gainer Perpetual Care - new and interesting! And no pool cost or blood cost, but has two interesting costs - needing to get those minions into torpor, and needing to find yourself without other Methuselahs about to be ousted by indiscriminate damage. A good, solid, interesting card. Yes, it's a pool burner, but it's very interesting in how it goes about it. Rabble Razing - interesting, but a sketchy include. It would be nice if it had been slightly more flexible so that you could include it and still use it if the weenies don't turn up. (Sat between the Imbued and a fatty deck, say.) Reinforcements - good and cool! Reins of Power - reverse Ancient Influence Secret Must Be Kept - sort of a twist on Kindred Segregation, though could be really quite good with it (no repay clause) Seraph - interesting, but only as good as the cards it enables and, prior to SoC at least, Seraph has been a little lack-luster Snipe Hunt - see Rabble Razing Sweeper - interesting, but seeing the top card of a deck is usually not considered that powerful Trumped-Up Charges - similar to Seraph, it's only as good as the trait it bestows Watchtower - pool gain, though it's an interesting variant on it for political decks Year of Fortune - hand size increase, which is interesting, though not highly valued by players So what does that amount to? - We have a bunch of the bread-and-butter cards, pool gain, blood gain, vote gain - We have some damage votes, but none of them are hugely exciting - We have a couple of recent attempts at cards similar to PTO - More ways to enter combat - Variants on existing cards (Camarilla Exemplary, Kindred Segregation) What's actually new? - ash-heap diving (new to politics) - minion damage votes (Free States Rant is very good, Deploy the Hand is somewhat lacklustre because it doesn't give you the control - if it was something like "If you control a ready Seraph, you choose", a la Baltimore Purge, it might have been much cooler) - untap tech (Firebrand) - plus and minus hand size - Perpetual Care is a real boon to rush/vote decks, and not just another way of allowing them in the first place And, erm, well. These are new, but they're not *that* cool. One of Garfield's design considerations for political actions was that they should be a bit of a curve ball. Blood loss, pool loss, blood gain, pool gain... it's not that curvey. Ash-heap diving *is* curvey. Untap tech is also curvey. Though these aren't wildly offensive, they are cool. Perpetual Care is potentially curvey. Plus and minus hand-size is curvey without being super powerful, and so doesn't see all though much play. But then go back and look at non-WW sets. We'll exclude Kindred Restructure and Dramatic Upheaval, though they were interesting, radical options for vote that weren't available elsewhere. While they are, in the fullness of time, a bad thing, the key facet of them being unique is not a bad thing. Banishment - very curvey, hot, interesting minion control tech. Could we disable other things? Disputed Territory - location theft. Perhaps other things could be stolen by political actions? First Tradition - out of left field, interfering with a Methuselah's ability to take a turn! Masquerade Enforcement - stopping influencing out vampires Lextalionis - Punishing players for winning Peace Treaty/Kindred Segregation - shutdown other resources Rumors of Gehenna - improve your own master card strategy Political Flux - dick with the benefits of ousting players Reversal of Fortunes - fun, silly card that empowers a couple of really screwball strategies Anathema - sort of borderline. Thing is, it empowers a vote/rush strategy, making it a solid deck type to explore, rather than just facilitating it (a la Archon, Templar, Alastor, Dogs of War), so is sort of routine (pool gain) but sort of new Sabbat Inquisitor - sort of cool, a weird ability and +bleed, in one package Compared to this sort of weird-ass stuff - some of which is dross, obviously - the WW political action cards look quite stifled. And that would be an entirely different way of approaching this issue. Don't look at costs, look at what you're achieving with Political Actions - and, more specifically, look at what you're not even attempting. There's very little there that's really innovative or unusual. Crazy example: Heart of Nizchetus is a super popular card. Everyone loves it! But it's equipment. What if it had been printed like so: Freedom of the City Requires a vampire with a city-based title Political Action, 1 vote, 1 stealth Unique If this referendum is successful, put this card on the acting vampire. If the vampire with this card is ready during your untap phase... Fun and innovative for a vote deck to try out? I'd have thought so. Pretty balanced? Well, it can't be stolen, but it requires a city title and a successful referendum, so it's probably about right, maybe a small tweak or something, but I don't see it as hideously unbalanced. Honestly, the sorts of things that vote actions have done in the WW era have been quite timid in doing radical, unusual things. You don't need to go into costs to try to un-stagnate votes. Going into costs is one choice you can make. But it's not the only choice. >But if: >1) Voter Cap is overly powerful >and >2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design > >then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. 1) hasn't been proved. That Voter Cap is very useful is certainly true. That it was overly broad in its design is certainly arguable. But I don't think you've made a solid case that it's overly powerful. Just that for its deck type (Presence-oriented politics), it's a very popular include. But then, there are a lot of similarly broad cards which turn up in an awful lot of decks. Dominate bleed finds it hard to stay away from Govern the Unaligned, and it's hard to design good new bleed cards that aren't Govern the Unaligned. It's hard to design meaningful bounce that isn't Deflection - people will still just graft Dominate onto their decks. That it's very good for its archetype isn't the same as it being overly powerful. Since there are still design avenues to explore, I'd rather we explored them *before* nerfing VC. - If leaving VC as it is for the time being forces some unusual, difficult costs to be explored, I don't see that as a limit I care about right now, really. - If being unhappy with unusual costs means that radically different avenues are explored at zero cost, I'm happy with that too. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Why not asking what they think about it to the 10 best ranked players? They will have a better idea don't you think.

> Why not asking what they think about it to the 10 best ranked players? > They will have a better idea don't you think. This makes little to no sense, and strikes me as condescending to the thousands of players who are not currently in the top 10. Skill at the game does not necessarily translate to insight into balance or design considerations.

In article <1170804680.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, "Olivier_PEREZ" <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not asking what they think about it to the 10 best ranked players? > They will have a better idea don't you think. Uhh, not so much. I have no doubt that the 10 best ranked players are good at the game (as well as having the time and opportunity to go to the most events...). That they are necessarily any better that judging what is or is not balanced in terms of game design is in no way attached to their ranking. I have far more faith in, say, James Coupe's (number 449) opinion on such matters that most folks in the top 10. [ quoted text not captured ]

preac...@gmx.at wrote: > Sure, VC can be countered. > - DI > - Delaying Tactics > > I remember folks saying RTI is not broken, it can be countered by > - DI (similarity?) > - Archon Investigation > - Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemies Enemy > > Do you get the comparison? :) I do, and it is an invalid comparison, since RTI was broken and VC isn't. The definition of 'broken' is that when 'X' is played, 'anti-X' must be played against it, or you have no chance (such as RTI, or certain Magic archetypes). If you played back in the bad ol' RTI days, then you know how bad and how broken RTI was. And you also know that VC isn't broken at all. Powerful, but not even close to broken. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, >> after so many years (since 1994)? > > The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that > Voter Cap greatly hinders the design of other political cards. > This probably indicates that it is a problem card. Bad assumption on your part. Either it is a problem card **OR** the design team isn't/hasn't explored enough alternative costings/methods of voting. The latter seems to be much more likely. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <vV9yh.32540$Lx2....@newsfe14.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Bad assumption on your part. Either it is a problem card **OR** the > design team isn't/hasn't explored enough alternative costings/methods of > voting. The latter seems to be much more likely. While I certainly don't discount alternative costing mechanisms as a possibility for balancing vote cards, I don't think it is remotely arguable that the very existence of Voter Cap compromises the ability to give vote cards a cost in blood or pool. Sure, it is debatable if this means that Voter Cap is overpowered in and of itself. But I don't think there is any question at all that it has a hindering effect on the design of vote cards. Regardless of whether or not Voter Cap is overpowered in and of itself, that it makes giving vote cards a blood cost (which is an obvious way to apply a cost to a vote card, and likely something that the designers have wanted to do as a balancing factor) strikes me as a certainty. [ quoted text not captured ]

v.ri...@gmail.com wrote: > *ironic* Right, VC is totally broken. I wonder why it's not in all > winning decks, though. I wonder even how the hell can anyone design a > winning vote deck without presence. I wonder how the hell anyone with so little imagination can so thoroughly misdefine a term. The definition of 'broken' is that when 'X' is played, 'anti-X' must be played against it, or you have no chance (such as Return to Innocence, or certain Magic archetypes). If you played back in the bad ol' RTI days, then you know how bad and how broken RTI was. And you also know that VC isn't broken at all. Powerful, but not even close to broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Yeah, my implication there was that if someone has all the cards in > the world, Awe/Voter Cap becomes a wildly effective strategy. A > significant limit to the power of Voter Cap is, in fact, how many > Awes you own. If you have 3 or 4 Awe, Voter Cap is much less useful > than if you have 15 Awes. It is good to see that you have finally stated that this discussion is really about Awe+VC, not VC itself. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ffayh.11041$nV3....@newsfe12.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > It is good to see that you have finally stated that this discussion is > really about Awe+VC, not VC itself. As I mentioned elsewhere, I think Awe, in and of itself, is a perfectly reasonable card--a high cost for a powerful effect. Where it becomes abusive (? over powered? Too good?) is when its cost becomes a non issue. Like when you introduce Voter Cap to the equation. Funny about that :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> As I mentioned elsewhere, I think Awe, in and of itself, is a perfectly > reasonable card--a high cost for a powerful effect. Where it becomes > abusive (? over powered? Too good?) is when its cost becomes a non > issue. Like when you introduce Voter Cap to the equation. Funny about > that :-) > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html Voter Captivation was not introduced to the Awe equation. Awe was introduced to the Voter Cap equation.

On Feb 7, 2:46 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <vV9yh.32540$Lx2.6...@newsfe14.phx>, > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [...] > Regardless of whether or not Voter Cap is overpowered in and of itself, > that it makes giving vote cards a blood cost (which is an obvious way to > apply a cost to a vote card, and likely something that the designers > have wanted to do as a balancing factor) strikes me as a certainty. Ahem... Political actions (unlike other type actions) have had no cost traditionally. Their requirements have traditionally had to do with titles (not with a blood cost). So why this blinkered attitude to base their balance on a blood cost when there are other alternatives available? Perhaps this is not the real reason why the Design Team is considering to power down Voter Captivation, since it seems to be a very weak reason. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

In message <pdb6-3E2A08.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <eqal2e$lca$1...@ss408.t-com.hr>, > lovre <lovre.g...@st.htnet.hr> wrote: > >> then change awe. i have a good tori deck with no KRC or other damaging >> PA, 6 VC and ONLY 2 awe. remove awe, its ok! remove VC and its over and out. > >If Voter Cap gets reduced in power, Awe suddenly becomes a totally >reasonable card (which currently, it isn't so much). And no one is >talking about *removing* Voter cap. Just reducing it's power to >reasonable levels. In a VC/Awe combo, why is it not Awe that is overpowered? VC was designed with relatively few ways for political decks to blow their blood. Awe came later, knowing that VC existed - assuming the Sabbat designers weren't on crack which is, sadly, not something we can assume. I can totally agree that VC/Awe is near the top of the power curve these days. But if it's decided that it's over the top of the power curve, I don't see that it's obvious that it's VC that's the problem. If the reasoning is going: - VC/Awe is overpowered - it would be convenient to nerf VC for reasons of design creativity so we'll nerf that one, even if nerfing Awe would be a better idea then that feels a bit shaky. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Feb., 02:19, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > preache...@gmx.at wrote: > > Sure, VC can be countered. > > - DI > > - Delaying Tactics > > > I remember folks saying RTI is not broken, it can be countered by > > - DI (similarity?) > > - Archon Investigation > > - Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemies Enemy > > > Do you get the comparison? :) > > I do, and it is an invalid comparison, since RTI was broken and VC isn't. > > The definition of 'broken' is that when 'X' is played, 'anti-X' must be > played against it, or you have no chance (such as RTI, or certain Magic > archetypes). If you played back in the bad ol' RTI days, then you know > how bad and how broken RTI was. And you also know that VC isn't broken at > all. Powerful, but not even close to broken. I never said VC is broken. Please re-read my post. IMO VC is just one step below being overtly broken. VC is the one card that enables to bring out your complete crypt of 10-11 caps (Arika, Queen Anne, Leandro, etc.) *without* going to great lengths to generate pool. With VC you can play your deck - call KRCs, Parity Shifts, PTOs, ConAgs and so on - and as an *added benefit* you get pool/blood (with Minion Tap you convert blood to pool easily, and I have never seen decks that heavily use VC that do not use MT as well) to boot. Other decks have to take actions to get that blood back on their vamps: Restoration, 5th Tradition, Concert Tour and others. Which do not further their primary goal of ousting their prey, mind you. And those actions can just as easily blocked like political actions. So I don't see why the delivery method is stressed when talking about political actions, and overlooked in context with "other" actions. PAs have normally +1 stealth to begin with... If you want to stop VC consistently, you have to play with DI or DT, assuming the deck using VC is built with getting VPs in mind and is working at least moderately the way it is expected to. Arika playing Ancient Influence generates 6 pool. That alone is huge. Naturally good PRE vote-decks are using Awe and BO in abundance to make sure their votes pass. Putting VC into this mix generates another 2 pool (that makes 8 pool during a single action!) and fills Arika up to 11 blood (part of that will again be used for Minion Tap, say 7 blood). Now, this single action resulted in increasing your pool by 15. Lets say you use KRC instead of Ancient Influence (to do direct damage to your prey) you'd still get 9 pool (always assuming the MT in the next turn, mind you). As an *added benefit* to doing furthering your primary goal - ousting your prey. No other card has that potential. In my book, that makes it a no brainer, a must have, and too powerful an effect.

In message <1170766222....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, olivier...@gmail.com writes: >And the argument of the "Eldest Commnd Undeath" is bad. This card is a >complete wall paper. It's not an automatic include in a deck, and it's not an easy card to play vs e.g. Protect Thine Own. But it's not wallpaper. It grants some considerable, though obviously awkward, power to Laibon voters. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Just be sure to use them for > > some time, and see the metagame flow around you and tear apart a deck > > that uses 24 cards just for awe+voter. For god's sake. > > This statement completely confuses me. I mean, Like, I totally don't > understand what you are saying. I think that the combo of Awe and Voter > Cap is an overpowered combination. You don't come to this conclusion by > *not* playing the combination. I'm saying that it might currently feel overpowered in your current metagame. Play the deck long enough, and see 4 other players pack in 2x delaying tactics, and you will se of the 6 times you will be having the combo in your hand, you will be pulling it of 4 times instead of 6. and that usualy means an empty setite. Which is not a pleasant thing for a setite politician. And you will miserably die. What I'm trying to say all along is that the awe+voter combo MIGHT feel overpowered from time to time. If you have 12 awe's in your deck, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that you'll be using half of them in a combo with voter. If there's 4 other players around you with 2x DT each, it's safe to assume that you will have 3-4 of those voters DT'd. And, if that happens, you will probably be in a very bad position. So, in that case, it's not overpowered. The bottom line is - AWE/VC is overpowered. VC is not. Change Awe. You yourself have proven that it's only the combo that is overpowered, not the VC, during this entire thread. And for new interesting political actions - it's not so hard to put in a text saying "Vampires cannot gain blood during this referendum", is it? So, voter will only be giving you 2 pool at superior presence, which is not such a big deal, actually LSJ wants to change it to do that after a succesfull referendum.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm 1000% ok with what say mister Norman S. Brown JR

On Feb 7, 3:30 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In a VC/Awe combo, why is it not Awe that is overpowered? I don't know that it necessarily isn't. But of the two: A) Awe, in and of itself, is completely reasonable. Spending 4 blood for 9 votes? Seems totally on par with the rest of the power curve in the game, assuming you actually have to work to get that 4 blood back. B) Voter Cap, in and of itself, is still the easiest, most unrestricted, high impact blood gain card in the game, that tends to turn the significant cost of things like Awe and Minion Tap into completely insignificant costs. It could be that of the two Awe is the overpowered one. But I suspect not. > VC was designed with relatively few ways for political decks to blow > their blood. Awe came later, knowing that VC existed - assuming the > Sabbat designers weren't on crack which is, sadly, not something we can > assume. We got a lot of crack wacky cards in Sabbat, mind you. -Peter

On Feb 6, 10:20 pm, "Malone" <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Voter Captivation was not introduced to the Awe equation. Awe was > introduced to the Voter Cap equation. True. But much like many decisions made under the auspices of the Sabbat design team, who knows what they were thinking? That being said, again, by itself, Awe is just fine. Voter Cap, by itself, is arguably overpowered. -Peter

My thoughts Yes, Voter Captivation is a powerful card. As you note so is taste of vitae. The game can have powerful cards, it is not a problem in itself. And even if it were I think that Blood Doll, Governs, Signposts and a lot of other stables are even more powerful than Voter Captivation. Voter Captivation enables big cap voters to bloat. They need this ability since their focus on voting will thin their combat, interception and/or bounce options. If not in terms of disciplines then in terms of deckspace. In order to avoid all political decks to devolve into breeder decks and using con boons - a concept that is already viable - I hope you can find a better solution than changing VC to whatever real or perceived limits VC inflict on new vote card design. I see a lot of people saying that presence vote is supreme compared to vote not using presence as if it is a bad thing. I for one think it is okay that Toreadors and Ventrues outvote Nosferatus - after all a ventrue is less likely to draw out your beast and rip your head off. Even if the two cammy voter clans are subject to widespread scorn I think it will ultimately be a loss for the game if these clans could not vote as efficiently as they can now. That means with an unchanged voter captivation. In order to expand on the costs I have a few suggestions that could replace the (real or imagined) futility of pool/blood costs. - clan requirements - no action modifiers can be played during or after referendum - does not untap in the next minion phase - need to give up the edge (like reverend vote) - reduce capacity of acting vampire with X - change the default stealth of the action - each ready minion controlled by the acting vampires controller take damage - acting vampire is removed from game after succesful referendum - burn an uncontrolled vampire / loose 4 transfers during next influence and so on. it must be possible. What i would not like is to have some nice cool vote card only be usable by some obscure bloodline with no good reason other than voter captivation. Theme votes are fine - like Dogs of War - but any general utility votes á la banishment, KRC, Disputed Territory and so on need to be available to the camarilla, including the ventrue and toreador. Its just my opinion, of course, but i think the backstory supports these clans having a larger control over kindred and human resources than most of the other clans - sure there are exceptions, like the setites, giovanni and lasombra but GENERAL votes needs to be GENERALLY available imo. If VC restricts the design of such cards please consider my suggestions for alternative costs. We would all like cool new cards but some of us would also like to keep the old cool cards. Frede > How does Voter Cap get played on an unsuccessful referendum? > > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA > cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the > corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is > suspect due to the option of alternating referendums between the > costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, > unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in > its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect > with pool gain to boot. > > Other comparable effects: > Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. > Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. > Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. > > The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, > I think we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what > you were doing anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even > when damage is prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never > gives pool, and it's harder to get the same range of gain with damage > compared to vote margins, and vote margins don't incur the same risks as > combat (and, arguably, "doing what your deck does" is typically stronger > in the "oust your prey" category for vote decks than for combat decks). > > Thoughts?

Peter D Bakija wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] You know, Peter, for all the fuzzy warm feelings awe/vc gives us, delaying tactics is a pretty common vote defense. It works even if people are not using awe - on once per game votes, ousting votes and general anti-spam voting by weenies. You have tried to empty a vampire with awe only to have vote delayed right? its not pleasant. the threat of it is enough to use Bewitching Oration, Scalpel Tongue, Iron Glare etc etc as your basic vote push. Or can be, depending on your meta i suppose. Frede

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Coupe wrote: > In a VC/Awe combo, why is it not Awe that is overpowered? Awe's cost/effect is actually somewhat balanced. You spend a lot of blood off a vampire, you get a lot of votes... once. So, avoiding the word "overpowered" since it's subjective and irrelevant to the discussion: which card is the strongest in the Awe/VC combo? The card that costs lots of blood for lots of votes, or the card that removes the cost of the first one, lets you end up with more blood than you started with, and gains you 2 pool as well? Put another way: How often do you see Awe played without VC in the deck? How often do you see VC played without Awe in the deck? > I can totally agree that VC/Awe is near the top of the power curve these > days. But if it's decided that it's over the top of the power curve, I > don't see that it's obvious that it's VC that's the problem. If the > reasoning is going: > > - VC/Awe is overpowered > - it would be convenient to nerf VC for reasons of design creativity so > we'll nerf that one, even if nerfing Awe would be a better idea I don't think that's the reasoning at all. I think the reasoning is much more like: - -- blood/pool recursion is too prevalent and contributes to game length - -- VC allows blood/pool recursion for free while still moving forward at full speed (KRC, etc.) - -- VC renders any blood-based costing mechanism for PAs worthless - -- so, is it possible to nerf VC without hurting big vampires and vote decks unnecessarily? I realize that the masses on the newsgroup aren't capable of complex reasoning in this fashion, which is why the "overpowered" strawman has begun littering the playing field. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFydCntQZlu3o7QpERAvvLAKDP0LN8bPc5FSAIFTrSbJte9V6wKQCgkXNi 44WIn7vJ0cim47DDHFIYeIw= =teAL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > Put another way: > > How often do you see Awe played without VC in the deck? > How often do you see VC played without Awe in the deck? > sometimes for a) and b). here(croatia) u'll see more VC than awe.

On Feb 7, 4:18 am, dome <l...@email.htnet.hr> wrote: > I'm saying that it might currently feel overpowered in your current > metagame. Play the deck long enough, and see 4 other players pack in 2x > delaying tactics, and you will se of the 6 times you will be having the > combo in your hand, you will be pulling it of 4 times instead of 6. and > that usualy means an empty setite. Which is not a pleasant thing for a > setite politician. And you will miserably die. And as noted, that is a problem for all decks. Sometimes, you get killed 'cause the metagame shifts. Sometimes you just sit in an unlucky seat. This doesn't necessarily mean that the cards in question aren't too powerful. I mean, like, this is an extreme comparison, and I realize that, but you could have said the exact same thing about Return to Innocence (i.e. "Play the (RTI) deck long enough and see 4 other players pack in 15x Deflection...") That players can adapt to a given strategy doesn't necessarily mean that the cards in question don't need a tweaking. > What I'm trying to say all along is that the awe+voter combo MIGHT feel > overpowered from time to time. Lots of things *might* feel overpowered from time to time. And sometimes they actually are. > The bottom line is - AWE/VC is overpowered. VC is not. Change Awe. You > yourself have proven that it's only the combo that is overpowered, not > the VC, during this entire thread. No, I have repeatedly said that VC is arguably overpowered in and of itself. I use the Awe example as it is a very concrete example of a card that should be totally reasonable (i.e. Awe) but ceases to be in conjunction with Voter Cap. Much like, say, Minion Tap. Minion Tap is also a perfectly reasonable card that becomes potentially overpowered in conjunction with, ya know, Voter Cap. -Peter

On Feb 7, 8:15 am, FC <f...@kemi.dtu.dk> wrote: > You know, Peter, for all the fuzzy warm feelings awe/vc gives us, > delaying tactics is a pretty common vote defense. It works even if > people are not using awe - on once per game votes, ousting votes and > general anti-spam voting by weenies. Sure. But as you note, this is a problem for voting in general, not for Awe and/or Voter Cap. > You have tried to empty a vampire with awe only to have vote delayed right? Sure. A slim once and a while. I've also rushed someone, IGed them, had them Disengage my IG, and then had them Rotschreck me with their Ivory Bow. This doesn't mean that it is something I'm worried about in a general sense. Once and a while, unfortunate things happen, as that is how the game works. The vast majority of time, however, I call a vote, play Awe, play Voter cap, refill my vampire, gain 2 pool, and pass my damaging vote at the same time. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6-75BF51.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com: > That Voter Cap just lets you virtually > instantly refill your vampire for, like, nothing, all while hurting > your prey at the same time is likely the issue here. > Recognizing that this only occurs after you've invested mondo-pool into a large capacity minion, possibly two, survived the big red combat target such a minion comes pre-installed with, and the faster weenie bleed decks that have pushed your pool dangerously low ('cause your large caps cost more initial investment), have taken a political action without getting blocked by the wall deck, gotten to the referendum, not had another political deck (or more) at the table voting against, have the available space on the minion due to a Minion Tap which was deep enough, but not too deep, got the Awe in your opening draw, and have enough overkill vote to refill, and not have the whole thing DT'ed post-Awe... in other words, like, nothing. It seems like you've convinced yourself that VC is a problem, but I'm not seeing it. VC is one of the few cards that adequately rewards the risk associated with large capacity minions, and does it in a manner where the effect scales down to smaller vampires appropriately. The other thing about its effect is that a host of other, common competitive decks can interfere with VC's end result, merely by them "doing their thing" properly. Even without the common DT defense, wall decks, combat decks, and bleed decks adjacent to a vote deck create an environment where a large cap vote deck cannot just "do its thing", as you've been arguing here. The wall deck intercepts the vote, the combat deck kills the PRE vamp before it can act, the bleed deck leans into it hard and fast, because the player has risked more pool on a bigger vampire. If bleed, wall, and combat concepts can all already deal effectively with a bloat tactic, without going out of their way in terms of deck-builiding, why does anything vote-related need to be changed? Once in a while a big-cap PRE deck gets its game on at the right table, and you hear about a guy ending the game with a sweep and 78 pool in the kitty. *shrug* So what? Weird things happen when many games get played. Ahrimanes win the EC... Assamites win a Storyline. As often as not, if I see a Pre vote deck winning, its doing so by the skin of its teeth, and needs what bloat it can get from VC to stay in the game. I'm not hearing much about the overwhelming success of big-cap PRE vote decks on the tournament scene, either... and if you're arguing "overpowered", then I've gotta see some proof of that before I can get behind any change, (and also know that the proof is that VC is the issue, and not, say, Arika or PTO.) Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Feb 7, 9:19 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It seems like you've convinced yourself that VC is a problem, but I'm > not seeing it. Nah. I haven't convinced myself it is a problem. I have convinced myself that it *might* be a problem. And I have also convinced myself that it does hinder the design team significantly in making new vote cards. As noted, aside from limiting the ability to add blood/pool costs to vote cards, it is possible that Voter Cap alone is keeping the vote strategy as a whole totally stagnant--because Voter Cap is as powerful as it is (I think we can at least all agree that Voter Cap is certainly powerful), it is certainly possible that the design team is holding back new and exciting vote strategies and abilities on the grounds of "Well, with Voter Cap, this is already on the top of the power curve". This is supposition, yes. But certainly possible. Like, yeah, it is possible that downpowering Voter Cap could be hindersome to some vote decks. But by doing so, there would be a lot of new avenues for new cards to rebolster those decks. For an obvious example, with Voter Cap nerfed, why not introduce a Political Action that did the same thing (i.e. gave you blood and/or pool based on how many votes you passed the referendum by)? This would be a perfectly reasonable card. And then combined with the downpowered Voter Cap would produce a great deal of bloat possibility while, like most of the other cards that do a similar thing, happen in and of themselves instead of doing so while also making your prey lose 4 pool. > and if you're arguing "overpowered", then I've gotta see some proof of that > before I can get behind any change Any "overpowered" that I am refering to is solely in comparison to cards that do similar things (5th Tradition, Giant's Blood, Taste, Entenching, Concert Tour, etc.) Which, a lot of the time, is exactly where one locates overpoweredness. -Peter

On Feb 7, 8:59 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > No, I have repeatedly said that VC is arguably overpowered in and of > itself. I use the Awe example as it is a very concrete example of a > card that should be totally reasonable (i.e. Awe) but ceases to be in > conjunction with Voter Cap. Much like, say, Minion Tap. Minion Tap is > also a perfectly reasonable card that becomes potentially overpowered > in conjunction with, ya know, Voter Cap. > > -Peter Here's another example: Bewitching Oration without VC: [action modifier] Gain 4 Votes. BO with VC: [action modifier] Gain 4 Blood. I do think Voter Captivation is a problem card for Political Action design. It completely negates the possibility of the two most common forms of costs of all other cards - blood and pool. I don't see, however, a way to nerf or ban it that actually affects how a weenie vote deck plays it, and thus, all we'd be doing is reducing the viability of large-cap vote decks, and large-cap decks are usually too problematic as is. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Feb 7, 9:51 am, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do think Voter Captivation is a problem card for Political Action > design. It completely negates the possibility of the two most common > forms of costs of all other cards - blood and pool. I don't see, > however, a way to nerf or ban it that actually affects how a weenie > vote deck plays it, and thus, all we'd be doing is reducing the > viability of large-cap vote decks, and large-cap decks are usually too > problematic as is. That is certainly a possibility. But then again, it might also open up interesting ways to re-increase the viability of large cap vote decks. Like, I totally understand that some folks don't want to see the card changed for completely practical reasons--they don't want all those Voter Caps in circulation to suddenly become wallpaper, which confuses new players and irritates old ones. And I also totally understand that some folks don't want to see the card changed because it will make large vampire vote decks less effective to some level. But on an absolute design level, assuming that the first is not an issue at all (which is a big assumption, I know) and that the second is something that could easily be addressed by new cards, the fixing of Voter Cap strikes me as a totally sound idea. But I know that the first issue is a problem. And the second is one that would take a long time to re-adjust. Which is why, in reality, I am totally ok one way or the other. Regardless of the fervor with which I post. -Peter

On Feb 7, 12:50 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1170796350.068121.112...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > See, this is again a convoluted way to fix a problem that is clearly the > Voter Cap and not the Minion Tap. Minion Tap is a powerful card that has > a significant cost (take blood of your vampire, which makes you stronger > but the vampire weaker) and in conjunction with *not* Voter Cap is > perfectly reasonable--it takes a lot of effort to refill that vampire > (taking dubious actions like Restoration or Entrenching or 5th > tradition, none of which hurt your prey; going into combat with not much > blood which is risky in and of itself; luckily having and getting to > play first the Giant's Blood). Well, until you encounter other weird decks that can cap up your vamps as easily, then Minion Tap again becomes powerful (such as renewed vigor or soul gem trick decks) With all the more dubious methods of filling up (3/4 blood at a time), people are more likely to play blood dolls and less likely to play minion taps anyway (or so has been my experience). > That Voter Cap just lets you virtually > instantly refill your vampire for, like, nothing, all while hurting your > prey at the same time is likely the issue here. True, can't argue that. Which is why I would find it justified for a change. However, in *most* vote decks, the pool is far more important than the blood on a minion, as *most* vote decks don't need much blood for just about anything anyway, other then for taking damage and paying tiny amounts for Majesty and forgottens, and the occasional PTO. It's having such an easy method of gaining pool back that's making it really ridiculous. > > I grant that many of these don't > > show up in decks (and are here for the sake of completeness), but > > others are in most vote decks I know, especially big cap ones. > > They don't show up specifically 'cause Voter Cap is just so much better. Yes, and no. Consag Boon, Ancient Influence, Reins of Power, and Political Stranglehold all make regular appearences. Oh, and as for the awe issue, if it's a problem in your play-groups, I suggest packing scalpel tongues, delaying tactics or, if you are really desperate, Irregular Protocol. All of these are dirt-common, and even getting it right once can completely ruin a awe-voter-cap deck. Again, I think change would be justified if it happened, but I wouldn't want to be the person doing it, nor do I find it particularly over-powering. Then again, if they changed fifth tradition because they found it over-powering, then changing voter cap does seem like a good idea, cos I don't see it to be any weaker a card than the old fifth tradition. Maybe they should consider giving other deck types better bloating capabilities instead? I would say introducing more effective/interesting cards is a better idea than fixing old ones.

On Feb 7, 9:51 am, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do think Voter Captivation is a problem card for Political Action > design. It completely negates the possibility of the two most common > forms of costs of all other cards - blood and pool. I don't see, > however, a way to nerf or ban it that actually affects how a weenie > vote deck plays it, and thus, all we'd be doing is reducing the > viability of large-cap vote decks, and large-cap decks are usually too > problematic as is. Perhaps: Voter Captivation Only usable after a successful referendum. [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the number of votes the referendum passed by or half of this vampire's capacity (round down), whichever is less. [PRE] As above, but up to 2 of those blood counters go to your pool instead of this vampire. This puts a pretty strict limitation on how much bloating you can do, but leaves it as pretty weak for smaller vampires, and may be sufficient to make blood costs meaningful, given that Arika will only be able to gain at most 5-points of Minion Tap + Awe + PA cost back as blood each turn (and that's if you give up the 2 pool opportunity from VC). Thoughts? witness1 -believe the lie.

On Feb 7, 10:12 am, "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Well, until you encounter other weird decks that can cap up your vamps > as easily, then Minion Tap again becomes powerful (such as renewed > vigor or soul gem trick decks) With all the more dubious methods of > filling up (3/4 blood at a time), people are more likely to play blood > dolls and less likely to play minion taps anyway (or so has been my > experience). Sure, but all those other ways to refill you are not *also* killing your prey at the same time (i.e. Renewed Vigor, Entrenching, heck, even Minion Tap/Restoration is a pretty good strategy for pool gain, but doesn't make for the most brutal forward momentum). Which is mostly where the issue lies. > Yes, and no. Consag Boon, Ancient Influence, Reins of Power, and > Political Stranglehold all make regular appearences. Sure. Also usually backed by Voter Cap. > Oh, and as for the awe issue, if it's a problem in your play-groups, I > suggest packing scalpel tongues, delaying tactics or, if you are > really desperate, Irregular Protocol. All of these are dirt-common, > and even getting it right once can completely ruin a awe-voter-cap > deck. It isn't a problem in my playgroup. It is a problem (potentially) in the game. If you go back and look, I wrote a response to this same issue to dome. -Peter

> Voter Captivation is a scaled effect with a greater effect benefited > by vampires of greater capacity. The game suffers signifigantly from > an imbalance in power towards many minions being more viable than a > few minions. More minions means more actions, and more actions means > more ousting power, and more ousting power results in quicker games. I think Norm has a point here. The nerfing of fifth and, before that, Tomb of can't-remember his name III have made playing big caps more difficult. Voter Cap is one of the only ways you can refill minions you have minion tapped. Nerfing VC without giving big caps help in another way seems to make weenie decks even better. > > One of the fundamental problems that the original designers saw in the > game was that the game took too long to play and was too complicated. > Quicker games are a result of more minions acting. Things that slow > games down are intercept, combat and bloating. > > So to make games quicker intercept must be toned down, combat must be > streamlined and bloating must be eliminated. > agreed.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:1170859209.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 7, 9:19 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> It seems like you've convinced yourself that VC is a problem, but I'm >> not seeing it. > > Nah. I haven't convinced myself it is a problem. I have convinced > myself that it *might* be a problem. And I have also convinced myself > that it does hinder the design team significantly in making new vote > cards. > The other thing I really want card change advocates (be it VC, or any other card) to think about is, is the problem big enough to warrant changing a card's text, in light of the extra burden that adds to new players? Personally, I've got a fairly high threshold for changing text. That mostly stems from how often i have to introduce the game to new players. On the back end of the many changes to card text, I can say it is _not_the blessing I thought it was five years ago. Its just another set of problems/complications that need to be clarified, which is why I'd rather we would all just be done with meddling with card text, altogether. Its a lot easier to "sell" card text changes to a new player if you can say that there are no more coming with a degree of honesty. If its a big enough problem, it better be big enough to be banned, IMO. DZ AW

atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns98D06EDA4A...@207.115.17.102: [ quoted text not captured ] Here's what I was looking for... http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration Card Text Migrations Some cards have been printed in more than one set, and some of those cards have had their functions alter slightly or changed dramatically. In V:TES, the most recent card text is used in these cases, even for the older printings of the cards. The list below identifies the cards that have been changed (as well as the set in which the change first appeared). -Clan-Conditional +Bleeds look at target, not prey FN,CE -Disciplines- add 1 level of the discipline. CE -Disciplines- say "cannot be placed on" instead of "cannot be played on" for clarity. ANA -Hunting Grounds- are "Hunting Ground" type. ANA Absolution of the Diabolist only usable when the blood hunt referendum passes. CE Academic Hunting Ground usable only in untap phase CE Acquired Ventrue Assets costs no pool; is activated on your own master phase FN Aggressive Tactics doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire SW Akhenaten burns himself (not Kherebutu) to burn a Follower of Set FN Alamut can give only vampires (not allies) votes FN Al's Army Aparatus only usable during your minion phase CE Anarch Troublemaker only usable during untap VTES Antediluvian Awakening can only be burned during untap SW Antonio Delgado untaps if the referendum (not just the PA) is successful SW Archon attempting to block an Archon burns a blood, not a pool VTES Archon targets Camarilla only; requires a Camarilla vampire to remove DS Army of Rats explicitly doesn't stack VTES Arson is not replaced until the end of the action SW Asylum Hunting Ground costs 2 pool CE Aura Reading superior is +2 hand size. It can be played at superior only once each combat. CE Banishment can only target younger vampires FN Bauble retrieves only weapons, not general equipment SW Beast, Leatherface has a general prohibition on equipment and retainers SW Blood Brother Ambush is an ally only while in play; has 2 strength SW Blood Doll grants ability to the controller of the vampire VTES Blood Fury does damage based on strength CE Blood Hunt cannot target Inner Circle CE Blood of Acid lasts for the current round; doesn't stack SW Blood Puppy costs 2 pool. CE Blood Rage does damage based on strength CE Blood Rage requires Thaumaturgy VTES Blood Tears can prevent damage only in combat FN Blood to Water usable only at close range CE Blythe Candeleria has normal Auspex CE Bonding restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general VTES Bonecraft affects subsequent strikes, even in the current round SW Bribes The bribing player gains 1 pool immediately VTES Burst of Sunlight not limited to vampire targets CE Bum's Rush is not replaced until the end of the action SW Bureacratic Overload increases the cost of political actions CE Caitlin is a 6 capacity vampire SW Camarilla Exemplary the vampire may still be blocked by allies VTES Camarilla Exemplary targets Camarilla only DS Cardinal Sin: Failure Mission the attack is an action; the card is controlled by the Meth. who played it; it is played by the blocker SW Cardinal Sin: Insubordination played by the combatant SW Catatonic Fear damage is applied after combat, and only if range was close SW Catatonic Fear costs 1 blood. CE Cats' Guidance inferior is usable (only) by a tapped vampire SW Cauldron of Blood does damage based on strength CE Change of Target doesn't untap the blocker (but still doesn't tap him) CE Charming Lobby is a political action that calls the first referendum CE Charnas the Imp activates during the untap phase. CE Clan Loyalty prevents the blocking vampire from blocking again, as well FN Code of Milan Suspended The "Methuselah with the Edge" is selected SW Concealed Weapon no discipline req., weapon cannot be unique, deal agg damage, cost more than 2 pool, or deal more than 3 damage (with a standard strike). CE Conditioning restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general VTES The Coven is a trifle ANA Creation Rites The acting vampire can move a blood to the vampire SW2 Crimson Sentinel counters increase the damage done by the weapon SW Darius Styx special ability is restricted to "other" Methuselahs' hands FN Day Operation Only vampires are restricted from blocking. CE Deal with the Devil is not replaced before discarding the hand VTES Delaying Tactics costs 1 CE Deflection cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself SW Derange requires a Malk or Malk antitribu. Is placed on a younger vampire (using the former superior Dementation effect). CE Detection victim can burn a blood to untap during his untap phase SW Disarm doesn't stack; not playable en rout to torpor SW Disguised Weapon equips an equipment card from your hand SAB Dog Pack is an animal type ANA Dr. Jest special ability is optional VTES Dragon's Breath Rounds modifies the gun, not the minion CE Drain Essence costs 1 CE Dramatic Upheaval Change places with *another* Methuselah (not with yourself). CE Drawing Out the Beast doesn't stack; sup. deals damage at press step SW Dreams of the Sphinx increased hand size lasts for current turn only. FN Eagle's Sight superior overcomes "who may block" only. requires a block attempt. CE Ecstatic Agony is an action ANA Elder Impersonation the blocker isn't untapped (but still isn't tapped, either) CE Elysium, the Arboretum can only be used by the controller of a combatant VTES Elysium, the Arboretum requires a Camarilla vampire to burn DS Elysium, the Arboretum ends combat between two Camarilla vampires SW Embrace, The doesn't receive a discipline card during action resolution. CE Enchant Kindred sup. at +1 stealth; only affects your uncontrolled region SW Faceless Night doesn't affect successful blocks. activates at action resolution. CE Fame is unique VTES Fame controller (not prey) loses 3 pool when vampire goes to toror SW Fata Morgana can be used without the stealth at superior. The normal doesn't restrict future bleed-boosting FN Fear of Mekhet can be moved to a justicar CE Fifth Tradition cannot target the acting vampire. Blood gain is limited to 4 blood. CE Force of Will doesn't untap the vampire FN Forest of Shadows costs 1 pool. CE Form of Corruption only gains a counter if your prey didn't already have the edge FN Form of Mist continuance costs 1 blood. A vampire can play only one superior each action ANA Gangrel Revel costs 1 pool and is unique ANA Ghouled Street Thug is an ally; has 1 strength SW Giant's Blood can be played only once per game VTES Glaser Rounds modifies the gun, not the minion CE Ghoul Retainer cannot use a weapon used by another retainer. Has 1 strength. CE Golconda: Inner Peace removes target from play CE Govern the Unaligned superior only affects your uncontrolled region SW Graverobbing targets "another" Methuselah's vampire CE Greta Kircher Special ability is explicitly "once per action" SW2 Guard Dogs Used against any bleed directed at you; only provides a maneuver if you successfully block the bleed SW Hawg grants one press per combat SW Heidelberg Castle cannot be used during an action FN Hidden Lurker is an action modifier SW Horrid Reality only retrieves weapons FN Hostile Takeover target must have capacity less than 7. CE Illegal Search and Seizure can also burn a weapon that does any amount of agg damage. CE Immortal Grapple "only hand strikes" current round only; doesn't stack SW Island of Yiaros no inherent burn option. CE Judgment: Camarilla Segregation Methuselah can burn a vampire during the master phase, not the minion phase. CE Justicar Retribution requires a Camarilla vampire DS Kali's Fang does strength+1 aggravated damage FN Kalinda special ability action costs 2 blood FN Legacy of Pander is not cumulative SW Legendary Vampire only targets recently-influenced vampires FN Life Boon You can take a pool from the target during her untap (not yours) VTES Life Boon doesn't give a VP if you are ousted before the VP is gained SW Living Manse can end combat only before range SW Louvre, Paris, The no cost CE Major Boon not usable by the acting minion's controller. Any Methuselahs can modify the bleed amount CE Majesty costs 1 blood (no additional cost for superior). Superior isn't "may". CE Malkavian Prank only other Methuselahs hold counters. You steal pool for correct guesses. CE Malkavian Time Auction the Methuselah cannot bid on her own auction VTES Manstopper Rounds modifies the gun, not the minion CE Marcellus Political actions cost Nosferatu an extra blood. CE March Halcyon A blood hunt cannot be called on the diablerist SW Masquerade Endangered prevents the vampire from hunting for the turn VTES Masquerade Enforcement requires a Camarilla vampire to play or to burn DS Meat Hook provides a press only once each combat ANA Mind Rape sup. steals the target your next minion phase thru end of turn SW Misdirection costs 1 pool; taps 1 minion SW Mob Connections can only give a press to a vampire VTES Monocle of Clarity answers about the future are not binding CE Obedience cancels combat before blocker taps SW Of Noble Blood cannot target a titled vampire CE Orgy of Blood doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire SW Oxford University no cost, X pool for X votes, no inherent burn option. CE Pack Tactics is not replaced until the end of the action SW Parity Shift cannot give pool to the Methuselah whose pool is being taken VTES Parity Shift reallocation is chosen before voting CE Patagia limited to one per vampire VTES Patagia Allows the vampire to burn a blood to temporarily gain flight. CE Phobia gains counters only during *your* master phase. Remains under your control FN Power Structure Requires a ready Lasombra SW2 Powerbase: Berlin No cost. Doesn't burn if the controller has no Ventrue. CE Powerbase: Mexico City you cannot steal from your own SW Powerbase: Rome costs no pool FN Powerbase: Washington, D.C. Can move 2 blood back (instead of 1) during your untap phase. CE Propaganda sup: the Methuselah being bled must tap an untapped minion SW Protracted Investment costs 2 pool, gets 5 counters (1 less pool and 1 fewer counter). CE Psychic Projection is put in play CE Pulled Fangs inflicts one normal (non-aggravated) damage; doesn't stack SW Pulse of Canaille inferior allows you to look at all Methuselahs' hands SW Purity of the Beast costs no blood; doesn't reduce capacity; no superior FN Rack only "works" if the vampire is controlled by the same Methuselah VTES Rat's Warning Used against any bleed directed at you SW Ravnos Cache costs no pool FN Redirection cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself SW Reform Body use as combat or reaction; usable in torpor SW Regina Giovanni reduces both blood and pool costs FN Ritual of the Bitter Rose is combat or modifier CE Rowan Ring sends opposing vampire to torpor with the ring. CE Ruins of the Villars Abbey costs no blood FN Rutor's Hand only 1. prevent damage by burning 3 blood CE Scrying Secrets acting Meth. chooses which card is discarded SW Second Tradition the effect costs 1 blood when used by a tapped P/J. CE Secure Haven is a haven type ANA Sengir Dagger inflicts strength damage, not just 1 point VTES Slaughtering the Herd requires only dominate SW Smiling Jack, The Anarch second part only affects other Methuselahs CE Soul Burn affects the opponent's currents strike CE Soul Gem treats same-aged vampire from the crypt as an older vampire VTES Soul Gem costs no pool. Only works for vampires. Cannot be taken via diablerie. CE Soul Stealing superior is a combat effect; normal is just action modifier FN Speed of Thought has no inherent stealth CE Stake see Wooden Stake Succubus Club only one trade per untap phase. Tap to trade. CE Sudden Reversal cost of the canceled card is not paid ANA Summon the Serpent puts a blood from the blood bank on the vampire; no superior FN Talbot's Chainsaw the press is only usable in the first round VTES Talbot's Chainsaw the press is only usable to continue. CE Taste of Vitae only counts blood lost to damage; isn't cumulative SW Taste of Vitae play at end of round. Only 1. CE Telepathic Misdirection cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself SW Telepathic Vote Counting superior is usable before or after victim votes VTES Temptation gains counters only during *your* master phase. Remains under your control FN Temptation of Greater Power only 1 can be played in a game CE Terror Frenzy sup. makes vampire burn blood per card played; doesn't stack SW Thoughts Betrayed superior restricts only strike cards SW Threats restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general VTES Tomb of Ramses III adds counters to itself, not to the vampire SW Torn Signpost sets the vampire's strength to a new amount SW Tremere Convocation no cost. unique. CE Undead Persistence continuously keeps the vampire out of torpor SW Uncontrollable Rage modifies the damage done by hand strikes ANA Vast Wealth played on a vampire you control; cost is paid in blood or pool VTES Vaulderie the blocking vampire cannot try to block again SW Ventrue Justicar makes the vampire the Ventrue Justicar VTES Wake with Evening's Freshness is not replaced until your next untap phase SW War Party requires a Priscus, Archbishop, or Cardinal SW Wasserschloss Anif, Austria no cost. CE Weather Control only one each combat. CE White Phosphorous Grenade harms bearer when used at close range SW Wooden Stake doesn't do aggravated damage; simulates old paralyze rules SW Zip Gun cannot use ammo; is a weapon only while in play SW ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- White Wolf : V:TES : Card Migration ...Are we done yet? DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > Here's what I was looking for... > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration > > -Disciplines- add 1 level of the discipline. CE Yeah. The Discipline cards should totally have been banned and reprinted under new names when "level" system was adopted. It's such a hardship to teach this stuff to newbies. > -Hunting Grounds- are "Hunting Ground" type. ANA Ban them all! > Academic Hunting Ground usable only in untap phase CE Or at least this one. > Alamut can give only vampires (not allies) votes FN So confusing. And so on. A long list of innocuous stuff (mostly working toward clarity and ease of play, esp. for newbies) interspersed with a few real changes. When will it end?

On Feb 7, 10:45 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The other thing I really want card change advocates (be it VC, or any other > card) to think about is, is the problem big enough to warrant changing a > card's text, in light of the extra burden that adds to new players? I addressed this point in another post (I realize it is difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of all my ramblings :-)--here is the thing. At least for me. I completely realize that this is a totally significant issue.But it is also one that I tend to ignore when discussing design issues. 'Cause at least from my perspective, I'm always willing to suck up errata/new card text in the name of making the game work better. For my money, making the game better will *always* trump the inconvinience of errata. But I fully realize that that is just me. So while I in no way deny that this is a significant issue, it is not one that I, personally, tend to worry about. And as such, I don't factor it into my discussion. That being said, yeah, it is a huge pain to have cards that don't have the right text, and it is a problem for newer players. > If its a big enough problem, it better be big enough to be banned, IMO. If I thought that was the only viable option (which it might very well be), I'd be totally ok with that (i.e. banning Voter Captivation and the immediately introducing Bloater Blaptivation that had the fixed Voter Cap text on it). But in reality, I suspect that most folks would rather all their old Voter Cap cards be useable, even if they have to remember errata, then have all their old Voter Caps get banned and then have to replace them all. But I could be wrong. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:1170866246.1...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 7, 10:45 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> The other thing I really want card change advocates (be it VC, or any >> other card) to think about is, is the problem big enough to warrant >> changing a card's text, in light of the extra burden that adds to new >> players? > > I addressed this point in another post (I realize it is difficult, if > not impossible, to keep track of all my ramblings :-)--here is the > thing. At least for me. I completely realize that this is a totally > significant issue.But it is also one that I tend to ignore when > discussing design issues. Well, that's fine if you're Joe Player... But if you're on the Design Team, or if you're advocating yet more Stuff that new players need to be aware of, I'd appreciate considering the extra burden it puts on guys like me. At first I thought that re-writes would be a boon, and in some cases they are. Horribly horrible cards which really needed to be reigned in can remain a part of the game. After the list got over 100 cards long, though, it really puts a big obstacle in the way of devloping a new player base. You'd like to think that most recent printing (MRP) is nice, but if I'm setting up a new group, I'm mostly using my own cards. If i want to use MRP with old cards, I've got to teach the relevant parts of the migration list to the new players, anyways. I'm fine with doing that for, say, Majesty, which was singlehandedly keeping Good Combat down. I'm not fine with doing it for purpose of eliminating the cost of Wasserschloss Anif, Austria, which still doesn't see any play, and about 50 to 70% of the other card text migrations. > 'Cause at least from my perspective, I'm > always willing to suck up errata/new card text in the name of making > the game work better. For my money, making the game better will > *always* trump the inconvinience of errata. But I fully realize that > that is just me. > Yuck. That attitude would result in killing the game off by inches, one card at a time, IMO. There's always going to be some imbalance in the game... it wouldn't be interesting to play if there weren't. > So while I in no way deny that this is a significant issue, it is not > one that I, personally, tend to worry about. And as such, I don't > factor it into my discussion. That being said, yeah, it is a huge pain > to have cards that don't have the right text, and it is a problem for > newer players. > >> If its a big enough problem, it better be big enough to be banned, >> IMO. > > If I thought that was the only viable option (which it might very well > be), I'd be totally ok with that (i.e. banning Voter Captivation and > the immediately introducing Bloater Blaptivation that had the fixed > Voter Cap text on it). But in reality, I suspect that most folks would > rather all their old Voter Cap cards be useable, even if they have to > remember errata, then have all their old Voter Caps get banned and > then have to replace them all. But I could be wrong. > I used to think that playing with old cards would be preferred, and it would be, _if_ the migration list were kept short (and finite)... but dealing with the wealth of older cards in the presence of new players is already a gigantic pain, and that problem does nothing but grow as more cards get functional changes. This game has enough trouble attracting new players, as it is. DZ AW

On Feb 7, 7:45 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote innews:1170859209.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > > On Feb 7, 9:19 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> It seems like you've convinced yourself that VC is a problem, but I'm > >> not seeing it. > > > Nah. I haven't convinced myself it is a problem. I have convinced > > myself that it *might* be a problem. And I have also convinced myself > > that it does hinder the design team significantly in making new vote > > cards. > > The other thing I really want card change advocates (be it VC, or any other > card) to think about is, is the problem big enough to warrant changing a > card's text, in light of the extra burden that adds to new players? New Card Text is an inconvenience for existing players but shouldn't be an issue for new players. New players are purchasing new cards with the new text on them so they're hardly confused. Errata is the thing that we need to have as little of as possible because it negatively affects existing players and new players alike. > Personally, I've got a fairly high threshold for changing text. That > mostly stems from how often i have to introduce the game to new players. > On the back end of the many changes to card text, I can say it is _not_the > blessing I thought it was five years ago. Its just another set of > problems/complications that need to be clarified, which is why I'd rather > we would all just be done with meddling with card text, altogether. Yeah, in practical terms I know the people I've taught have often been taught with crap from my old piles of common cards. And then I give them lots of old Jyhad cards too. So, yes, that's a bummer since there are lots of changes. I try to stick to the new starter decks and base sets for teaching now. -Robert

> So confusing. > > And so on. > > A long list of innocuous stuff (mostly working toward clarity and ease > of play, esp. for newbies) interspersed with a few real changes. > > When will it end? I believe I sense sarcasm. Ankur Play. The. Game.

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in news:1170869460.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com: > New Card Text is an inconvenience for existing players but shouldn't > be an issue for new players. New players are purchasing new cards with > the new text on them so they're hardly confused. Errata is the thing > that we need to have as little of as possible because it negatively > affects existing players and new players alike. > I'll give you a super-common scenario; an Old Player meets/plays against a New Player, and Old Player is playing his old cards... He plays something New Player hasn't seen before. New Player askes "can I read that?". Old player answers "Yeah, but it doesn't work as written", and so needs to explain to New Player anyways. The burden on ease of play isn't as great as errata, but its still a burden. > > Yeah, in practical terms I know the people I've taught have often been > taught with crap from my old piles of common cards. And then I give > them lots of old Jyhad cards too. So, yes, that's a bummer since there > are lots of changes. I try to stick to the new starter decks and base > sets for teaching now. > ...and I make people buy the Player's Kit at Barnes and Noble :-) But really, if we aren't going to put a lid on re-wording cards, a problem which is mostly an issue for old players playing old cards with new players (ie, my problem) will eventually become a problem everybody will have to deal with on a regular basis. I'm just letting you know firsthand, from this side of the issue, its a big pain in the ass. From this perspective, I'm saying if something is decided to be _sooo_ bad, then it is also (by definition) bad enough to warrant banning it. If it isn't, then the problem isn't big enough to be worth tinkering with card text to try to tweak it. DZ AW

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:09nyh.74297$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] Alright, Mister. Of course any dozen or more card text changes are handleable. The change that some proponents on this thread are advocating lets me know that here's how I'd break them out... A. Re-Wording which clarifys use, corrects typos, or streamlines rules changes (80 entries) -Clan-Conditional +Bleeds look at target, not prey FN,CE -Hunting Grounds- are "Hunting Ground" type. ANA Academic Hunting Ground usable only in untap phase CE Akhenaten burns himself (not Kherebutu) to burn a Follower of Set FN Archon attempting to block an Archon burns a blood, not a pool VTES Archon targets Camarilla only; requires a Camarilla vampire to remove DS Arson is not replaced until the end of the action SW Asylum Hunting Ground costs 2 pool CE Blood Brother Ambush is an ally only while in play; has 2 strength SW Blood Doll grants ability to the controller of the vampire VTES Blood Puppy costs 2 pool. CE Blythe Candeleria has normal Auspex CE Bonding restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general VTES Bum's Rush is not replaced until the end of the action SW Cardinal Sin: Failure Mission the attack is an action; the card is controlled by the Meth. who played it; it is played by the blocker SW Cardinal Sin: Insubordination played by the combatant SW Catatonic Fear damage is applied after combat, and only if range was close SW Cats' Guidance inferior is usable (only) by a tapped vampire SW Change of Target doesn't untap the blocker (but still doesn't tap him) CE Charming Lobby is a political action that calls the first referendum CE Conditioning restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general VTES Deflection cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself SW Disguised Weapon equips an equipment card from your hand SAB Dog Pack is an animal type ANA Dragon's Breath Rounds modifies the gun, not the minion CE Dramatic Upheaval Change places with *another* Methuselah (not with yourself). CE Dreams of the Sphinx increased hand size lasts for current turn only. FN Eagle's Sight superior overcomes "who may block" only. requires a block attempt. CE Ecstatic Agony is an action ANA Elder Impersonation the blocker isn't untapped (but still isn't tapped, either) CE Enchant Kindred sup. at +1 stealth; only affects your uncontrolled region SW Faceless Night doesn't affect successful blocks. activates at action resolution. CE Force of Will doesn't untap the vampire FN Form of Corruption only gains a counter if your prey didn't already have the edge FN Glaser Rounds modifies the gun, not the minion CE Govern the Unaligned superior only affects your uncontrolled region SW Graverobbing targets "another" Methuselah's vampire CE Greta Kircher Special ability is explicitly "once per action" SW2 Guard Dogs Used against any bleed directed at you; only provides a maneuver if you successfully block the bleed SW Hawg grants one press per combat SW Hidden Lurker is an action modifier SW Horrid Reality only retrieves weapons FN Kalinda special ability action costs 2 blood FN Major Boon not usable by the acting minion's controller. Any Methuselahs can modify the bleed amount CE Malkavian Prank only other Methuselahs hold counters. You steal pool for correct guesses. CE Malkavian Time Auction the Methuselah cannot bid on her own auction VTES Manstopper Rounds modifies the gun, not the minion CE Parity Shift reallocation is chosen before voting CE Power Structure Requires a ready Lasombra SW2 Powerbase: Mexico City you cannot steal from your own SW Propaganda sup: the Methuselah being bled must tap an untapped minion SW Pulse of Canaille inferior allows you to look at all Methuselahs' hands SW Rack only "works" if the vampire is controlled by the same Methuselah VTES Rat's Warning Used against any bleed directed at you SW Redirection cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself SW Reform Body use as combat or reaction; usable in torpor SW Regina Giovanni reduces both blood and pool costs FN Ritual of the Bitter Rose is combat or modifier CE Rowan Ring sends opposing vampire to torpor with the ring. CE Scrying Secrets acting Meth. chooses which card is discarded SW Secure Haven is a haven type ANA Slaughtering the Herd requires only dominate SW Smiling Jack, The Anarch second part only affects other Methuselahs CE Soul Burn affects the opponent's currents strike CE Soul Gem treats same-aged vampire from the crypt as an older vampire VTES Soul Gem costs no pool. Only works for vampires. Cannot be taken via diablerie. CE Soul Stealing superior is a combat effect; normal is just action modifier FN Stake see Wooden Stake Sudden Reversal cost of the canceled card is not paid ANA Taste of Vitae only counts blood lost to damage; isn't cumulative SW Taste of Vitae play at end of round. Only 1. CE Telepathic Misdirection cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself SW Telepathic Vote Counting superior is usable before or after victim votes VTES Temptation gains counters only during *your* master phase. Remains under your control FN Threats restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general VTES Torn Signpost sets the vampire's strength to a new amount SW Undead Persistence continuously keeps the vampire out of torpor SW Vaulderie the blocking vampire cannot try to block again SW Ventrue Justicar makes the vampire the Ventrue Justicar VTES White Phosphorous Grenade harms bearer when used at close range SW Wooden Stake doesn't do aggravated damage; simulates old paralyze rules SW B. Needed changes to cards (17 entries) Army of Rats explicitly doesn't stack VTES Elysium, the Arboretum ends combat between two Camarilla vampires SW Fame is unique VTES Fame controller (not prey) loses 3 pool when vampire goes to toror SW Giant's Blood can be played only once per game VTES Golconda: Inner Peace removes target from play CE Legacy of Pander is not cumulative SW Life Boon doesn't give a VP if you are ousted before the VP is gained SW Majesty costs 1 blood (no additional cost for superior). Superior isn't "may". CE Mind Rape sup. steals the target your next minion phase thru end of turn SW Misdirection costs 1 pool; taps 1 minion SW Monocle of Clarity answers about the future are not binding CE Temptation of Greater Power only 1 can be played in a game CE Thoughts Betrayed superior restricts only strike cards SW Wake with Evening's Freshness is not replaced until your next untap phase SW Weather Control only one each combat. CE Zip Gun cannot use ammo; is a weapon only while in play SW C. Un-Needed Changes to Powerful Cards (40 entries) Anarch Troublemaker only usable during untap VTES Antediluvian Awakening can only be burned during untap SW Beast, Leatherface has a general prohibition on equipment and retainers SW Banishment can only target younger vampires FN Creation Rites The acting vampire can move a blood to the vampire SW2 Day Operation Only vampires are restricted from blocking. CE Delaying Tactics costs 1 CE Derange requires a Malk or Malk antitribu. Is placed on a younger vampire (using the former superior Dementation effect). CE Disarm doesn't stack; not playable en rout to torpor SW Drawing Out the Beast doesn't stack; sup. deals damage at press step SW Elysium, the Arboretum can only be used by the controller of a combatant VTES Elysium, the Arboretum requires a Camarilla vampire to burn DS Embrace, The doesn't receive a discipline card during action resolution. CE Fifth Tradition cannot target the acting vampire. Blood gain is limited to 4 blood. CE Form of Mist continuance costs 1 blood. A vampire can play only one superior each action ANA Heidelberg Castle cannot be used during an action FN Hostile Takeover target must have capacity less than 7. CE Immortal Grapple "only hand strikes" current round only; doesn't stack SW Judgment: Camarilla Segregation Methuselah can burn a vampire during the master phase, not the minion phase. CE Legendary Vampire only targets recently-influenced vampires FN Meat Hook provides a press only once each combat ANA Obedience cancels combat before blocker taps SW Parity Shift cannot give pool to the Methuselah whose pool is being taken VTES Pulled Fangs inflicts one normal (non-aggravated) damage; doesn't stack SW Rutor's Hand only 1. prevent damage by burning 3 blood CE Second Tradition the effect costs 1 blood when used by a tapped P/J. CE Sengir Dagger inflicts strength damage, not just 1 point VTES Succubus Club only one trade per untap phase. Tap to trade. CE Terror Frenzy sup. makes vampire burn blood per card played; doesn't stack SW Tomb of Ramses III adds counters to itself, not to the vampire SW D. Un-needed changes to not-overpowerful cards (78 entries) -Disciplines- add 1 level of the discipline. CE -Disciplines- say "cannot be placed on" instead of "cannot be played on" for clarity. ANA Absolution of the Diabolist only usable when the blood hunt referendum passes. CE Aggressive Tactics doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire SW Acquired Ventrue Assets costs no pool; is activated on your own master phase FN Alamut can give only vampires (not allies) votes FN Al's Army Aparatus only usable during your minion phase CE Antonio Delgado untaps if the referendum (not just the PA) is successful SW Aura Reading superior is +2 hand size. It can be played at superior only once each combat. CE Bauble retrieves only weapons, not general equipment SW Blood Fury does damage based on strength CE Blood Hunt cannot target Inner Circle CE Blood of Acid lasts for the current round; doesn't stack SW Blood Rage does damage based on strength CE Blood Rage requires Thaumaturgy VTES Blood Tears can prevent damage only in combat FN Blood to Water usable only at close range CE Bonecraft affects subsequent strikes, even in the current round SW Bribes The bribing player gains 1 pool immediately VTES Burst of Sunlight not limited to vampire targets CE Bureacratic Overload increases the cost of political actions CE Caitlin is a 6 capacity vampire SW Camarilla Exemplary the vampire may still be blocked by allies VTES Camarilla Exemplary targets Camarilla only DS Catatonic Fear costs 1 blood. CE Cauldron of Blood does damage based on strength CE Charnas the Imp activates during the untap phase. CE Clan Loyalty prevents the blocking vampire from blocking again, as well FN Code of Milan Suspended The "Methuselah with the Edge" is selected SW Concealed Weapon no discipline req., weapon cannot be unique, deal agg damage, cost more than 2 pool, or deal more than 3 damage (with a standard strike). CE The Coven is a trifle ANA Crimson Sentinel counters increase the damage done by the weapon SW Darius Styx special ability is restricted to "other" Methuselahs' hands FN Deal with the Devil is not replaced before discarding the hand VTES Detection victim can burn a blood to untap during his untap phase SW Dr. Jest special ability is optional VTES Drain Essence costs 1 CE Fata Morgana can be used without the stealth at superior. The normal doesn't restrict future bleed-boosting FN Fear of Mekhet can be moved to a justicar CE Forest of Shadows costs 1 pool. CE Gangrel Revel costs 1 pool and is unique ANA Ghouled Street Thug is an ally; has 1 strength SW Ghoul Retainer cannot use a weapon used by another retainer. Has 1 strength. CE Illegal Search and Seizure can also burn a weapon that does any amount of agg damage. CE Island of Yiaros no inherent burn option. CE Justicar Retribution requires a Camarilla vampire DS Life Boon You can take a pool from the target during her untap (not yours) VTES Living Manse can end combat only before range SW Louvre, Paris, The no cost CE Marcellus Political actions cost Nosferatu an extra blood. CE March Halcyon A blood hunt cannot be called on the diablerist SW Masquerade Endangered prevents the vampire from hunting for the turn VTES Masquerade Enforcement requires a Camarilla vampire to play or to burn DS Mob Connections can only give a press to a vampire VTES Of Noble Blood cannot target a titled vampire CE Orgy of Blood doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire SW Oxford University no cost, X pool for X votes, no inherent burn option. CE Pack Tactics is not replaced until the end of the action SW Patagia limited to one per vampire VTES Patagia Allows the vampire to burn a blood to temporarily gain flight. CE Phobia gains counters only during *your* master phase. Remains under your control FN Powerbase: Berlin No cost. Doesn't burn if the controller has no Ventrue. CE Powerbase: Rome costs no pool FN Powerbase: Washington, D.C. Can move 2 blood back (instead of 1) during your untap phase. CE Protracted Investment costs 2 pool, gets 5 counters (1 less pool and 1 fewer counter). CE Psychic Projection is put in play CE Purity of the Beast costs no blood; doesn't reduce capacity; no superior FN Ravnos Cache costs no pool FN Ruins of the Villars Abbey costs no blood FN Speed of Thought has no inherent stealth CE Summon the Serpent puts a blood from the blood bank on the vampire; no superior FN Talbot's Chainsaw the press is only usable in the first round VTES Talbot's Chainsaw the press is only usable to continue. CE Tremere Convocation no cost. unique. CE Uncontrollable Rage modifies the damage done by hand strikes ANA Vast Wealth played on a vampire you control; cost is paid in blood or pool VTES War Party requires a Priscus, Archbishop, or Cardinal SW Wasserschloss Anif, Austria no cost. CE With A & B adding up to 97 entries, and C & D adding up to 118 entries, I'm closer to the 50% mark, than I am 70%, which i'm actually glad about. Still, I think D is much too big, owing maybe to trying to upgrade mediocre/bad cards..? There might be a few mis-assigned decisions in there, as I'm not totally paying close attention with what I did to every entry. *shrug* DZ AW

atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns98D09F7128...@207.115.17.102: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > news:09nyh.74297$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net: > >> atomweaver wrote: >>> Here's what I was looking for... >>> >>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration >>> >>> -Disciplines- add 1 level of the discipline. CE >> >> Yeah. The Discipline cards should totally have been banned and >> reprinted under new names when "level" system was adopted. It's such >> a hardship to teach this stuff to newbies. >> >>> -Hunting Grounds- are "Hunting Ground" type. ANA >> >> Ban them all! >> >>> Academic Hunting Ground usable only in untap phase CE >> >> Or at least this one. >> >>> Alamut can give only vampires (not allies) votes FN >> >> So confusing. >> >> And so on. >> >> A long list of innocuous stuff (mostly working toward clarity and >> ease of play, esp. for newbies) interspersed with a few real changes. >> >> When will it end? > > Alright, Mister. Of course any dozen or more card text changes are > handleable. The change that some proponents on this thread are > advocating lets me know that > uhps. unfinished thought. Sorry... ...that they are advocating card re-writes be used more freely to increase the population of the migration list. This is something I'm against, because it is a burden for teaching new players, and the degree of that burden is directly linked to the size of the migration list. Banned cards are actually much much easier to deal with for new players, as they don't have to deal with them in-play at all. New Player opens old pack "whats this Return to Innocence/Succubus Club/VC?" Old Player "it was banned, because tournament play showed it to be too powerful/disruptive/<whatever>" New player "Oh... That sucks, but OK." Keeps things Short and Sweet, and questions about how things "really work" are rendered moot. Also, considering a ban sets the bar high on really thinking about whether an effect is merely very good, or Actually Truly too-powerful... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Greg Pettigrew wrote: > ...and large-cap decks are usually too problematic as is. Show me the empirical evidence that supports this. - Ben Peal

In message <8bCdnfK4c6KGTVTY...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray <moot@i_dont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In a VC/Awe combo, why is it not Awe that is overpowered? > >Awe's cost/effect is actually somewhat balanced. You spend a lot of >blood off a vampire, you get a lot of votes... once. In some ways, though, it takes the politics out of politics. Other similar effects are either played after a successful referendum (e.g. Cryptic Rider), or are announced in advance (Dia de los Muertos), or are highly conditional (Malkavian Rider Clause). Though Awe costs a lot of blood, it just says "Okay, we've negotiated and stuff but, screw you guys, I'm having my way." Which, at a level of taste and a level of, erm, what I think the game was supposed to be about, I don't like. Politics was supposed to be subject to negotiation. That's a different argument, but it's probably why I come down against Awe a little more than VC. >So, avoiding the word "overpowered" since it's subjective and irrelevant >to the discussion: which card is the strongest in the Awe/VC combo? The >card that costs lots of blood for lots of votes, or the card that >removes the cost of the first one, lets you end up with more blood than >you started with, and gains you 2 pool as well? Put another way, which is the more powerful - the card that lets you get your way, or the card that hinges on you already having done so? >Put another way: > >How often do you see Awe played without VC in the deck? >How often do you see VC played without Awe in the deck? I've certainly seen one played (in a given turn/action) without the other, so it's not like players aren't amenable to the possibility. (Though that's sometimes involved a Giant's Blood in hand or similar, I'm sure.) I've also seen, much more rarely, a couple of Awes thrown into decks as a sort of vote offence or defence, when things are pretty screwy. Also, though, I don't think that you can use the fact that VC is a popular include in many decks to categorize it is as the stronger of the two. I see Deflection in a hell of a lot of Dominate decks before I see Mind Rape, yet Mind Rape is an incredibly powerful card. >> I can totally agree that VC/Awe is near the top of the power curve these >> days. But if it's decided that it's over the top of the power curve, I >> don't see that it's obvious that it's VC that's the problem. If the >> reasoning is going: >> >> - VC/Awe is overpowered >> - it would be convenient to nerf VC for reasons of design creativity so >> we'll nerf that one, even if nerfing Awe would be a better idea > >I don't think that's the reasoning at all. I think the reasoning is >much more like: > >-- blood/pool recursion is too prevalent and contributes to game length >-- VC allows blood/pool recursion for free while still moving forward at >full speed (KRC, etc.) >-- VC renders any blood-based costing mechanism for PAs worthless >-- so, is it possible to nerf VC without hurting big vampires and vote >decks unnecessarily? See, if this is the actual reasoning - which it might well be - I think it's missing a number of important deck types. Lasombra Breed/Boon, for example, can go forward at full speed, breed at full speed, and then just tap Power Structure to pass a Con Boon - bing, 6 pool. Bing, another 6 pool. Stealth lets you call the votes, stealth lets you breed, stealth lets you bleed. Just add Power Structure and a solid high cap vampire (say, Gratiano) and you're doing very well indeed. Pretty much zero slowdown on the deck strategy, and lets you get major, major pool in one action - and it's not entirely incomparable when you consider that many political decks won't *just* be taking KRC actions, but also Praxis Seizures, Rumors of Gehenna, or whatever other support/bolstering votes. Con Boon has the potential for hugely more pool gain. If pool recursion is too prevalent *and* is the cause for looking at VC, I think that looking at Voter Captivation alone is a mis-guided point of change. Breed/Boon can do frightening things here, and by being a Breed deck is not sacrificing ousting power in any truly significant way. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In article <Xns98D07D4C95...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Yuck. That attitude would result in killing the game off by inches, one > card at a time, IMO. There's always going to be some imbalance in the > game... it wouldn't be interesting to play if there weren't. I don't know that it would kill the game off by inches. Like, since Camarilla, how many cards have been functionally changed with new wordings? Not that many, really. There have been a few minor, virtually insignificant tweaks here and there (see: Ventrue Invesment) and a couple serious rewordings (see: Anarch Revolt). All of which I'm perfectly in favor of. Like, I'm not saying every single card in the game which is slightly off here or there should get rejiggered. But when there is a noticeable issue that needs addressing (and I think this current one is such an issue), it strikes me as worth the hassle (of reworded cards) to fix it. But again, I realize that this is me, and not everyone. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <Xns98D09F7128...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > C. Un-Needed Changes to Powerful Cards (40 entries) Without going into the specifics, I think every single example you give of an "un-needed change to powerful cards" was both necessary and improved the game. And the minor inconvinience of having cards with different wordings on them strikes me as perfectly reasonable for the improvement in the game environment. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Whoops...misread your sentence. Please ignore. :) - Ben

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Coupe wrote: > In message <8bCdnfK4c6KGTVTY...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray > <moot@i_dont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> writes: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> In a VC/Awe combo, why is it not Awe that is overpowered? >> Awe's cost/effect is actually somewhat balanced. You spend a lot of >> blood off a vampire, you get a lot of votes... once. > > In some ways, though, it takes the politics out of politics. Other So do Delaying Tactics and any number of the anti-vote cards that have recently been printed that say "No, this vote fails." Not to mention that there's nothing preventing someone from playing Kindred Coercion on the vampire who just played Awe. Awe, played by itself is not an automatic pass for any vote. It is a powerful tool to help you pass your votes, and it has a far-from-insignificant cost. > highly conditional (Malkavian Rider Clause). Though Awe costs a lot of > blood, it just says "Okay, we've negotiated and stuff but, screw you > guys, I'm having my way." Which, at a level of taste and a level of, > erm, what I think the game was supposed to be about, I don't like. > Politics was supposed to be subject to negotiation. But there are still plenty of cards available after Awe is played. It's a strong card with a high cost, but plenty of people in this thread have already pointed out that no vote is guaranteed to pass, for a number of reasons that are largely irrelevant to whether Awe was played or not. Awe doesn't even remotely remove the negotiation from politics... unless, of course, you figure out a way to play one on every vote. I wonder how I would go about doing that... > That's a different argument, but it's probably why I come down against > Awe a little more than VC. And at the end, yes, this is a different discussion entirely, about whether Awe is too big an effect for its cost, and whether Presence should have such a tool in the first place. Neither is really germane to the original topic. >> So, avoiding the word "overpowered" since it's subjective and irrelevant >> to the discussion: which card is the strongest in the Awe/VC combo? The >> card that costs lots of blood for lots of votes, or the card that >> removes the cost of the first one, lets you end up with more blood than >> you started with, and gains you 2 pool as well? > > Put another way, which is the more powerful - the card that lets you get > your way, or the card that hinges on you already having done so? A basic tenet of V:TES is "you must be able to build decks that do things". In other words, take successful actions, call successful votes, beat people up successfully in combat. If your vote deck can't pass its votes, Voter Captivation doesn't ever enter the picture one way or the other. But, in V:TES as in all well-designed games, offense is stronger than defense and we can safely assume that in most circumstances, the vote-caller will be able to pass their vote. Whether they use Awe, or whether they stack a Charming Lobby and Bewitching Oration on top of some table votes, or _whatever_, objecting to changes to VC on the grounds of "but it's hard to pass votes once you get them to referendum and so it's hard to play VC", is, again, not germane to the discussion. If it was really so hard to pass votes, vote decks wouldn't be considered a primary archetype. >> Put another way: >> >> How often do you see Awe played without VC in the deck? >> How often do you see VC played without Awe in the deck? > > I've certainly seen one played (in a given turn/action) without the > other, so it's not like players aren't amenable to the possibility. > (Though that's sometimes involved a Giant's Blood in hand or similar, > I'm sure.) Indeed. I know that in my experience, I _have_ seen one or two Awes thrown into a PRE deck, alongside a couple "i won't call this vote much, but it has to pass" votes -- but I have seen Voter Captivation used routinely in any deck that remotely features superior Presence, whether it came with Bewitching Oration, Awe, Charming Lobby, Aura of Invincibility, Legacy of Pander, ... take your pick. There really is no cost to playing it, as long as you've built a vote deck that expects to pass most of its votes. > I've also seen, much more rarely, a couple of Awes thrown into decks as > a sort of vote offence or defence, when things are pretty screwy. > > Also, though, I don't think that you can use the fact that VC is a > popular include in many decks to categorize it is as the stronger of the > two. I see Deflection in a hell of a lot of Dominate decks before I see > Mind Rape, yet Mind Rape is an incredibly powerful card. Your analogy sort of proves my point -- I consider Deflection to be a significantly more powerful card than Mind Rape. In fact, it's nearly on the level of "must have" if your deck features Dominate, unless you've gone out of your way to avoid needing it. A card being featured frequently in decks is hardly a sole indicator of the card's strength. But it is a single valid indicator. >> I don't think that's the reasoning at all. I think the reasoning is >> much more like: >> >> -- blood/pool recursion is too prevalent and contributes to game length >> -- VC allows blood/pool recursion for free while still moving forward at >> full speed (KRC, etc.) >> -- VC renders any blood-based costing mechanism for PAs worthless >> -- so, is it possible to nerf VC without hurting big vampires and vote >> decks unnecessarily? > > See, if this is the actual reasoning - which it might well be - I think > it's missing a number of important deck types. Whether other forms of bloat should be nerfed isn't yet under discussion. It may well be a discussion in the future, but the question wasn't "is bloat too powerful", the question was "should VC be nerfed and can it be done effectively?" By the way, I tend to agree that other forms of bloat should come under discussion too. But for the moment, the topic is VC, and I'm just pointing out a much more logical reason why VC would be a target for nerf than "VC decks are too powerful", which is a sky-is-falling distraction from the original topic. > Con Boon has the potential for hugely more pool gain. If pool recursion > is too prevalent *and* is the cause for looking at VC, I think that > looking at Voter Captivation alone is a mis-guided point of change. Again, what makes you think anyone is looking at Voter Captivation alone? That hasn't come up yet, and it's good to remember that just because a thing hasn't been discussed openly doesn't mean it's not also under consideration. For example, nobody has yet considered the possibility of, in the same set as releasing an MRP to Voter Cap, printing a vote card reading: Big Momma's Fat Humpin' Orgy Political Action, 1 blood Fill a younger vampire that you control to capacity. Now, this card is far from perfect, I'm sure. But it should illustrate quite well that nerfing VC might well hardly be the end of the world for big vampire vote decks... and it should also illustrate that just because the original question only referred to VC, that it isn't unheard of that other steps might be taken alongside changing VC. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFyl7ltQZlu3o7QpERAmi8AJsGSOLggL6fupGMFD1jMZ/OQ5VDpwCeKdHg Pd6LPEcf31FtjdE1zw8BkIM= =vQQ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <85ednVSsOtLBw1fY...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray <moot@i_dont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote: > For example, nobody has yet considered the possibility of, in the same > set as releasing an MRP to Voter Cap, printing a vote card reading: > > Big Momma's Fat Humpin' Orgy > Political Action, 1 blood > Fill a younger vampire that you control to capacity. Heh. Well, actually, I made a virtually identical suggestion a number of posts up. But keep going--you are gold, Pony Boy! [ quoted text not captured ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <85ednVSsOtLBw1fY...@giganews.com>, > Derek Ray <moot@i_dont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote: >> For example, nobody has yet considered the possibility of, in the same >> set as releasing an MRP to Voter Cap, printing a vote card reading: >> >> Big Momma's Fat Humpin' Orgy >> Political Action, 1 blood >> Fill a younger vampire that you control to capacity. > > Heh. Well, actually, I made a virtually identical suggestion a number of > posts up. But keep going--you are gold, Pony Boy! Oops. Sorry, my bad. I quit reading most of the posts closely as soon as the "sky is falling" crowd started in. :) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFynIBtQZlu3o7QpERArDeAKCySPPUtBrzGZLmgll1UNOzkwsV7QCfb+Sh a2alZRBrXiSwUNsEyFdzQYQ= =miNK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Feb 8, 3:05 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Once and a while, unfortunate things happen, as that is how the game works. Can we put this quote in the rule book? It would be so much easier to teach new players if they got this :-) Simon

On Feb 7, 12:31 pm, "Robert Goudie" <robe...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > New Card Text is an inconvenience for existing players but shouldn't > be an issue for new players. New players are purchasing new cards with > the new text on them so they're hardly confused. My experience is that potential new players do not want to begin by buying new cards. They want to borrow decks to see if they enjoy the game, then after a while they'll buy a starter deck or two. After that they mostly rely on free cards that long-time players or ex- players give them, until they're involved enough to buy a box of boosters which is often a box of Jyhad because they're still sometimes really cheap on ebay. And they continue to borrow decks to try out different clans and strategies. People's experience with the game suffers a lot from things like "You can't play Majesty, it costs a blood now" -- one instance of that can ruin a whole game for somebody (because their empty Anneke was going to survive Tariq's rush with the Majesty, get hunting ground blood next turn and call Parity Shift unblockably via TGB... or whatever). And then they may not be back, because there's a lot of competition for people's gaming time and money.

> think that the combo of Awe and Voter > Cap is an overpowered combination. You don't come to this conclusion by > *not* playing the combination. I really don't buy this, sorry. Surely if this combo were overpowered in an otherwise balanced game, we'd see an overwhelming number of PRE vote decks winning tournaments. A quick glance at the TWDA will show that this is simply not the case. Vote in itself is usually an unwieldy strategy, requiring multiple cards in particular sequence [vote card, stealth [usually], vote push, VC] which is quite easily countered by a number of well used cards [intercept usually, but delaying tactics shows up quite often around here]. It's a strat that is also boned by happenstance - pred and prey both pull out fatties [who usually have titles whether you use vote or not] and every single vote becomes an uphill battle. Viewed in isolation, card for cost, yes the combo of awe/vc for push, or the far, far more powerful minion tap/vc for bloat may seem overpowered. But when viewed in the context of vote decks as an archetype, and the mechanics of vote in a table situation, it's not at all overpowered. Vote is a challenging strat to win with, and it's made competitive by tools like VC. I say again, if VC were an overpowered card, it would be winning a lot more tourneys than it does. The proof is in the pudding. This is not a question of the overpowered nature of VC. I think that's just misdirection on the part of LSJ. I think this is an issue about design, and the difficulties LSJ may be facing when exploring the vote concept in light of VC and cards like KRC and Cons Agg. Nerfing VC into oblivion [and the suggestions he's made so far are akin to the 5th Trad nerf, which reduced it to wallpaper] is an easy, and lazy answer.

On Feb 7, 12:29 pm, "witness1" wrote: > Perhaps: > > Voter Captivation > Only usable after a successful referendum. > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is > the number of votes the referendum passed by or half of this vampire's > capacity (round down), whichever is less. > [PRE] As above, but up to 2 of those blood counters go to your pool > instead of this vampire. > > This puts a pretty strict limitation on how much bloating you can do, > but leaves it as pretty weak for smaller vampires, and may be > sufficient to make blood costs meaningful, given that Arika will only > be able to gain at most 5-points of Minion Tap + Awe + PA cost back as > blood each turn (and that's if you give up the 2 pool opportunity from > VC). > > Thoughts? Not bad at all. But why not get rid of the "keep track of the vote margin by which the referendum has passed" part and stay only with Voter Captivation Only usable after a successful referendum. [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is half of this vampire's capacity (round down). [PRE] As above, but you may move up to 2 of those blood counters to your pool instead. Something like this would make the card a little less strong while keeping some incentive for playing large caps. What I like the most about your idea is that weenie vote decks wouldn't benefit much or at all from this version. Abraço, Luiz Mello

On 6 Feb 2007 13:36:15 -0800, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 6, 3:07 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> > James Coupe wrote: >> > But if: >> > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful >> > and >> > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design >> >> > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. >> >> I'm not sure this is the case. I'd add: >> >> 3) if VC's existance enables a game-breaking or overly powerful deck >> type. > > So we should never change cards to improve the game unless they enable > overpowered deck types? What if instead of enabling overpowered types > they stifle otherwise reasonable strategies into oblivion? Is this the case with VC? Will you be unable to play Nos Vote because VC exists, and you cannot use it? Or maybe I'm not following you... Anyway, the point is, if a deck archetype is not overpowered, than trimming a powerful card it relies on might weaken it, and make it less competitive against other archetypes that are using other sets of cards. Pretty general point, but I think it holds - I'd be happy to have Bowl of Abuse banned, because not only is it overpowered, it is strengthening one of the strongest archetypes (if not the strongest). >> Which is not the case. In fact, even with VC, fattie PRE Vote decks in >> general are only the third or fourth best play (behind walls, weenies >> and maybe powerbleed). >> >> If I'm looking at the statement that VC negates political card blood >> and pool costs, I'm also not fully there. > > Pool costs not so much - because there's a hard cap on the amount of > pool you can gain with VC, so when you're stuck with a net gain of 1 > pool instead of 2 it matters. But blood costs are pretty much a joke, > because it's not terribly hard in a PRE deck to make a vote pass by > ridiculous margins (once it gets to the floor). Which is a fair point. Still, I kinda feel that setting your deck up for overkill vote passing is a cost in itself. >> It might >> be considered to try to balance votes, like with Vox Senis, except in >> a more play-worthy way, giving more votes to players who don't want >> to focus their decks on politics, and making it more balanced. > > There's been a number of cards in recent sets (Irregular Protocol, > Confusion of the Eye) that seem to be addressing some of these things. > Most of them are viewed as substandard replacements for Delaying > Tactics/DI, and I'm pretty sure we don't need anything *better* than > Delaying Tactics to stop it. I'm not so much talking about anti-vote cards. I'm more talking about ways to balance the number of votes accross the tables. That's why I quoted Vox Senis - because one of its uses is to give every player a vote. Not powerful, I agree, but definitely along the lines I'm thinking. > If we *are* going to see cards added to the game just to give players > more votes to cut back on Voter Captivations with (and then expect > people to play with these cards specifically to cut down on Voter > Captivations so that political cards with blood costs actually > matter), doesn't that suggest that VC should be changed instead? Not really. Balancing votes a bit more, making it harder to get vote lock, would IMHO make the game generally better. VC is just a symptom of how evil vote lock can be in the right deck. >> Plus, if VC gets trimmed, and PTO stays, I'll be pretty pissed at how >> design team fixes something that is giving them inconvenience instead >> of >> fixing something that regularly pisses off half of the player base. :) > > That's probably an overstatement, but the point may hold. Which part? The one that says I'd be pretty pissed? :) -- Regards, Daneel

LSJ ----- I have to admit something there is not a lot of vote deck that has a chance to survive in VTES. Weenie Vote deck (legacy / Ventrue Dictorate / Foundation of exhibit) Camarilla vote deck (accesse to parity shift so even without voter capte they can gain pool) Vote with presence ( Ventrue obfuscate/ lassombra presence and so on). I would really like to see new vote deck that could work without one of those tree possibility. If to do so you need vote that allow gaining pool but that would be to powerful combine with voter captivation i thing another limitation can be put. Like "cannot play action modifier after this vote" or "no presence card can be play during this action, or the possible combat". That will bring powerful vote creating new deck without destroying the one that exist. What do you think?

In message <1170779463....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Olivier_PEREZ <olivier...@gmail.com> writes: >Hey boy's > >to play voter capt you need to have Presence. > >The reason why this discipline is the vote discipline is because there >is combat end's and voter capt and push bleed. > >The segond best vote decks are using obtenebrate that bring stealth >and combat ends... > >If you want to balance vote between vampires then bring combat ends in >a discipline that is use by some voters... That's pretty much missing the point LSJ is making, though. It's not about empowering or not empowering other disciplines, it's about the fact that he feels that VC makes it hard for him to design new cards. Adding good utility to a discipline used by voters other than Presence voters doesn't alter the alleged problem with VC making it hard to design cards with meaningful costs. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1170797775....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> writes: >On Feb 6, 3:07 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> > James Coupe wrote: >> > But if: >> > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful >> > and >> > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design >> >> > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. >> >> I'm not sure this is the case. I'd add: >> >> 3) if VC's existance enables a game-breaking or overly powerful deck type. > >So we should never change cards to improve the game unless they enable >overpowered deck types? What if instead of enabling overpowered types >they stifle otherwise reasonable strategies into oblivion? If a given card is good - which no-one is saying VC isn't - but not over-powered, then it follows that it is probably okay. Top of the power curve? Maybe, but we don't just nerf cards for being the best cards currently available. If the problem is that it's not over-powered BUT it's way better than all the alternative strategies, isn't the actual problem that those strategies aren't very good? And isn't it better to address this by giving plays choices in those other strategies (or creating yet more options in as yet untried arenas)? If it was Return to Innocence, that's one thing - way off the power curve. But if you agree that VC is not broken or overpowered, why nerf it? Why not help other strategies? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <0T3yh.16673$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Damnans wrote: >> On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many >>>> years (since 1994)? >>> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap >>> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably >>> indicates that it is a problem card. >> As I already mentioned, it may not Voter Captivation, but the Design >> Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political >> actions. > >Note that the ability to get around an obstacle is not the same as >there being no obstacle. But there are clear other obstacles in the game that the Design Team has chosen not to remove. - It is hard to create an interesting, balanced bleed card for 1 blood, when Govern the Unaligned is so strong. - It is hard to create an interesting, balanced bleed card for 0 blood, when Computer Hacking is very solid indeed. Yet the Design Team has felt itself able to try out interesting costs and benefits. See, for example: - Flurry of Action, free, no bleed, but a nice pay-off - Enticement, a bleed-like action that isn't a bleed, and so has interesting pay-offs and benefits, but also restrictions - Fiendish Tongue, an interesting side benefit (Anarchs) and untap (Tzimisce) for a sect restriction - Forgery - an interesting attempt at bleed with a fringe benefit of bloating Then Laptop, J.S. Simmons and Tasha Morgan make it hard to create interesting, generic bleed boosters. But the Design Team has been able to route around that obstacle and create Robert Carter, with a very interesting cost. It is hard to create stealth that's playable without making a given clan with Dominate over-powered, because of the inherent problems of Dominate, yet Mirror Walk is a subtle and balanced card dealing with a pretty significant obstacle. >All of the designs you imagine the Design Team overlooking are no less >possible with the obstacle removed than with it in place, and there's >no indication that they are being overlooked; quite the contrary. All of the cards that you've created routing around other obstacles have worked out just fine, even though you could have decided to nerf those obstacles too. See also, for example, one of the cards that many people feel is an inappropriate and huge obstacle to designing for the !Malkavians - Kindred Spirits. Bleed *and* gain pool at inferior, omni-directable, and with a bleed bonus at superior! This has generated a LOT of moans over the years. Yet this obstacle hasn't stopped you creating cards for the !Malkavians, or bleed modifiers generally, knowing full well they can be using them. >Whether the Design Team imagines them is not in question, nor is that >quesrtion useful toward reaching a conclusion about the question of VC >being problematic. It is difficult to see why the Design Team has chosen to focus on Voter Captivation as an obstacle they must remove, when there are so many other solid, commonly used, powerful cards that turn up in VAST numbers of decks using that discipline because they're so very, very good, and because they're often hugely better cards than other equivalent cards of the same type for other clans or disciplines. Somehow, the Design Team seem to have been able to cope with these other obstacles, and so many more, or make a valiant attempt to do so without nerfing existing cards. Why *only* VC? Why have you been able to exercise your creative imagination(s) to overcome so many other obstacles, but are choosing not to do so with this one? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] there we go, using the TWDA again as some kind of proof. It proofs nothing, nada! >From the same info you can come to different conclusions. Above you state that VC isn't overpowered because it isn't in the TWDA more than the rest. Maybe vote strategies are now underpowered *despite* having an ubercombo like Awe - VC. Or maybe voting *would* be uberpowerfull, except for the fact that it's easy to defend against (Delaying tactics, DI, ...)

In message <pdb6-6F5F1C.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >I have far more faith in, say, James Coupe's (number 449) opinion on >such matters that most folks in the top 10. Good Lord. Given my inability to arrange my life sensibly, I'm surprised I even have a ranking. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1170897351....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> writes: >On Feb 7, 12:31 pm, "Robert Goudie" <robe...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > >> New Card Text is an inconvenience for existing players but shouldn't >> be an issue for new players. New players are purchasing new cards with >> the new text on them so they're hardly confused. > >My experience is that potential new players do not want to begin by >buying new cards. They want to borrow decks to see if they enjoy the >game, then after a while they'll buy a starter deck or two. After >that they mostly rely on free cards that long-time players or ex- >players give them, until they're involved enough to buy a box of >boosters which is often a box of Jyhad because they're still sometimes >really cheap on ebay. I've certainly run into players who'll buy a truckload of cheap-ass cards on Ebay after they've bought a couple of starters/boosters and enjoyed it. Not even boxes of boosters, but someone selling off their collection, or "Complete set of V:TES vampires" or "500 Jyhad cards" or whatever. The layout change is very minor, and people can get their heads round that in 30 seconds (and with a little squinting at tiny discipline boxes, relative to the luxurious hugeness of recent ones). The card text changes are less so. Old players only have to incrementally add, perhaps, a half-dozen MRP changes to their head a year these days. New players have quite a lot more than that to work on. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Olivier_PEREZ" <olivier...@gmail.com> writes: > I have to admit something there is not a lot of vote deck that has a > chance to survive in VTES. > Weenie Vote deck (legacy / Ventrue Dictorate / Foundation of exhibit) > Camarilla vote deck (accesse to parity shift so even without voter > capte they can gain pool) > Vote with presence ( Ventrue obfuscate/ lassombra presence and so on). > > I would really like to see new vote deck that could work without one > of those tree possibility. I once constructed a highly succesful, tier 1 Ventrue vote deck without a single Voter Captivation or Parity Shift. I called it "Kokoomusnuoret" ("The Conservative Youth" or "Young Republicans"). It had weenie Ventrue and even smaller Caitiff. The Ventrue would play Revelation of the Sire on the Caitiff, making a swarm of tiny Ventrue. Then I would slap down Ventrue Directorate Assembly, and go to town with Praxis Seizures, Con Boons and damaging votes. I didn't use Voter Captivation, since most of my guys didn't have presence. Parity Shift would have been counterproductive, since I was planning on bloating constantly. One can create a Lasombra deck like this using Power Structure, or !Toreador with Foundation Exhibit. Most players use Embraces and Creation Rites instead of Revelation of the Sire. (RotS had an additional benefit: I could call the vamps in my crypt with the names of real, living and active young Conservative Finnish politicians. :-) -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1170779463....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > Olivier_PEREZ <olivier...@gmail.com> writes: >> Hey boy's >> >> to play voter capt you need to have Presence. >> >> The reason why this discipline is the vote discipline is because there >> is combat end's and voter capt and push bleed. >> >> The segond best vote decks are using obtenebrate that bring stealth >> and combat ends... >> >> If you want to balance vote between vampires then bring combat ends in >> a discipline that is use by some voters... > > That's pretty much missing the point LSJ is making, though. It's not > about empowering or not empowering other disciplines, it's about the > fact that he feels that VC makes it hard for him to design new cards. That's pretty much missing my point, though. It's not about being an obstacle to design, it's about being too powerful. One of the consequences of this primary point, yes, is that it leads to, among other things, some small obstacle to designing PAs with blood costs that are balanced and whose balance is not immediately erased by VC. See my initial post in this thread.

The combat decks have taste of vitae, why can't Vote decks have Voter Captivation?? The polical game is always the same BW, VC? I don't think so. Voter is a card that requires presence, most vote decks use presence because presense is a really good discipline for vote decks, the same way that obf is really good for stealth. Why not create NEw cards, that could be used by decks that don't have PRE. WHy not create new vote cards that has some specials, "only usable by a ally", "called by any vampire, 0 stealth blablabla"; "costs 2 blood", "costs 1 pool". "ONly usable by clan XYZ". "Burn all the gehenas". I don't know! What I know is that VC is no too powerfull. And if it where, why not change it to "this vampire gets blood equal to half the votes the referendum passed." or "only usable BEFORE votes are cast., or "Can play only ONE per turn" On Feb 8, 8:04 am, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

I think , no changes for voter captivation.Not in the text.Maybe rarity, or stop his reedition for a time, and make new cards as good as voter or kine. Making new cards, with new tacts could be a solution, that brings more fun to political decks. [ quoted text not captured ] > > iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -

On 8 feb, 14:07, zero...@gmail.com wrote: > I think , no changes for voter captivation. I'm not convinced, but... >Not in the text. this is the only way >Maybe rarity, Worst idea possible. it' been in print for 12 years and rare cards shouldn't be better than commons. >or stop his reedition for a time, and make new cards as good > as voter or kine. IF there is a problem with VC (I'm not completely convinced), making other cards as good would lead to power creep. Bad idea. > > Making new cards, with new tacts could be a solution, that brings more > fun to political decks. I think that more cards to benefit Big Caps are needed. That will solve a lot of problems for the political decks.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:d6kYkROQ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > I've certainly run into players who'll buy a truckload of cheap-ass > cards on Ebay after they've bought a couple of starters/boosters and > enjoyed it. Not even boxes of boosters, but someone selling off their > collection, or "Complete set of V:TES vampires" or "500 Jyhad cards" or > whatever. > > The layout change is very minor, and people can get their heads round > that in 30 seconds (and with a little squinting at tiny discipline > boxes, relative to the luxurious hugeness of recent ones). The card > text changes are less so. > > Old players only have to incrementally add, perhaps, a half-dozen MRP > changes to their head a year these days. New players have quite a lot > more than that to work on. > Yah, and this is why I'm trying to urge a check on the growth of the migration list, realizing that, whatever the original intention was, a player learning the game has to assimilate that list eventually. Ideally, it'll be in small chunks, but thats not always the case. Established players like Peter and most of us here aren't sensitive to the overall size of that list, because we've absorbed its changes over the course of the last seven years. But I'm talking it to death. Peter gets it, you get it, anyone else who reads this gets it... I'm stopping now. :-) DZ AW

On Feb 8, 5:09 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > But there are clear other obstacles in the game that the Design Team has > chosen not to remove. > > - It is hard to create an interesting, balanced bleed card for 1 blood, > when Govern the Unaligned is so strong. > > - It is hard to create an interesting, balanced bleed card for 0 blood, > when Computer Hacking is very solid indeed. I don't know that this is the same issue--yeah, Govern is really good at 1 blood. But since Govern has existed (i.e. forever), plenty of reasonably good bleed cards built on the same model have been printed (Scouting Mission--arguably a perfectly good card; Slaughtering the Herd--arguably not that good as a bleed card, but I'd think more folks would be looking at this card in the face of the Imbued) and will continue to be designed and printed. Yeah, ok, none of them are as *good* as Govern, generally speaking--Scouting should be, but much like Threats vs Conditioning, the 1 blood cost for 1 extra payload is a better deal that it costs--but at least they fit into the design paradigm and are theoretically balanced, and there is nothing built into the game to specifically counteract the cost. Like, if there were an action modifier that was "Play during a bleed. If this bleed is successful, the acting vampire gains blood equal to the pool lost by the target", A) I think most folks would agree that it was completely insane and B) it would make cards like Slaughtering the Herd (arguably not that good as a bleed card, sure, as the one extra blood cost for the "unblockable by allies" part isn't that much of an improvement) impossible to design and cost correctly. Currently, you can't really give a Political Action a blood cost and expect it to mean anything (unless it is either absurdly huge or you tack on an arbitrary "you can't gain blood during this vote", which is both, ya know, kind of arbitrary and likely often *too much* of a cost for certain effects). It would be perfectly possible to make, say, a bunch of PAs that were Praxis Seizures or Crusades that each came with a generic useful special ability (get an extra vote when you call a PA with the acting Prince, get to untap if you successfully pass a referendum with the acting Prince, whatever), and give them all an added cost in blood or pool. But Voter Cap makes this a losing design situation, as the blood/pool cost is effectively nullified, and then some. Which is a different issue than trying to make a bleed card that is equivalent to Govern. > Then Laptop, J.S. Simmons and Tasha Morgan make it hard to create > interesting, generic bleed boosters. But the Design Team has been able > to route around that obstacle and create Robert Carter, with a very > interesting cost. Yeah. He costs blood. Funny, that... > It is difficult to see why the Design Team has chosen to focus on Voter > Captivation as an obstacle they must remove, when there are so many > other solid, commonly used, powerful cards that turn up in VAST numbers > of decks using that discipline because they're so very, very good, and > because they're often hugely better cards than other equivalent cards of > the same type for other clans or disciplines. I think there is a significant difference between the obstacles you bring up (which are certainly valid examples of design issues that need dealing with) and the Voter Cap issue--Voter Cap is a completely concrete, direct obstacle to both: A) Making political cards cost blood/pool and B) Making political cards that give you blood/pool Both of which are avenues that are seriously underdeveloped in the arena of political cards (PAs or modifiers or whatever). That Govern is so good for 1 blood, or that Dementation has Kindred Spirits is a more abstract obstacle to design, and while it requires the occasional sidestep to get around, isn't as cut and dry as Voter Cap. I think, in the end, if Voter Cap does get changed (and I'm still, ahem, voting for the very simple "Useable on a successful PA: pre:gain 2 blood; PRE: gain 2 pool), I certainly see that various political decks will take a hit, and will need re-jiggering. But I'd also expect that various other political upgrades (in the form of new, useful cards that bolster up these political decks that have taken a hit) and crazy new angles and cards that were previously deemed unworkable due to Voter Cap to follow. Like "Big Mama's Honking Orgy" (or whatever :-) -Peter

On Feb 7, 5:30 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [snip] > > -Hunting Grounds- are "Hunting Ground" type. ANA > > Ban them all! > [snip] i support This !!!!!!! Andrea

On Feb 6, 4:38 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Feb 3, 9:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > > <a...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > > >news:1170507405.8...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > > New vote cards can have a "high stakes" effect > > > > Example: > > > Allocate 5 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful > > > referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. > > > If this referendum is unsuccessful, burn two pool (or burn 1 blood on > > > each of your vamps, or something like that). > > > > What do you think? > > > > nope. A cost shouldn't be as easily circumvented as 'play with Voter Cap, > > > which you will probably be doing anyway' > > > How does Voter Cap get played on an unsuccessful referendum? > > > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with > > costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual > > acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option > > of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones. > > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > Interesting that you think that Voter Cap is the barrier to scaling up > the power of voting cards. > > > > > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, unblockable, > > restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in its primary goal in > > the first place). And then it compounds the effect with pool gain to boot. > > > Other comparable effects: > > Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. > > Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. > > Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > > Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > > Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. > > > The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, I think > > we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what you were doing > > anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even when damage is > > prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never gives pool, and it's > > harder to get the same range of gain with damage compared to vote margins, and > > vote margins don't incur the same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what > > your deck does" is typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for vote > > decks than for combat decks). > > Taste of Vitae make combat viable. > > > Thoughts? > > Voter Captivation is a scaled effect with a greater effect benefited > by vampires of greater capacity. The game suffers signifigantly from > an imbalance in power towards many minions being more viable than a > few minions. More minions means more actions, and more actions means > more ousting power, and more ousting power results in quicker games. > > One of the fundamental problems that the original designers saw in the > game was that the game took too long to play and was too complicated. > Quicker games are a result of more minions acting. Things that slow > games down are intercept, combat and bloating. > > So to make games quicker intercept must be toned down, combat must be > streamlined and bloating must be eliminated. > > Perhaps that wasn't what you were asking for? > So just for the record, I think that altering Voter Captivation presents more problems by causing deck designs on the whole to migrate to smaller and smaller average crypt capacity than it solves by "spontaneously innovating new cards" with its change. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

LSJ wrote: > That's pretty much missing my point, though. It's not about being an obstacle to > design, it's about being too powerful. One of the consequences of this primary > point, yes, is that it leads to, among other things, some small obstacle to > designing PAs with blood costs that are balanced and whose balance is not > immediately erased by VC. See my initial post in this thread. There is no empirical evidence supporting the assertion that Voter Captivation is too powerful. The card has not had a dominating or disruptive effect on the competitive environment in V:TES for the past 12 years. - Ben Peal

The issue about VC causing you to gain pool / MT bloating big, while still pursuing your primary objetive, ousting your prey (as opossing to all the other forms of big bloating with MT, like Renewed Vigor, 5th Tradition...) could be handled by simply adding a "Not usable if any Metuselah has lost pool as a result of this referendum" clause to VC. So no KRC + VC, no Parity + VC, but it would still allow big cap PRE voters to bloat actively by Political Stranglehold + VC, or even Banishment + VC, and it would allow DT to make interesting pool damaging votes without thinking about VC.

ben...@gmail.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Very true. Also all comparisons to ToV or other cards inherently wrong because they don´t realize the complex setup VC needs only to be totally (and in the so-called uber-powerfull combination with Awe) TOTALLY hosed by a single Delaying Tactics. -- johannes walch

On Feb 8, 10:53 am, "Fizeront" <brigada.bru...@gmail.com> wrote: > The issue about VC causing you to gain pool / MT bloating big, while > still pursuing your primary objetive, ousting your prey Which is good...... Gaining resources while in the pursuit of ousting one's prey should be encouraged, and is in fact, encouraged within the games structure (i.e. 1 VP and 6 pool for ousting your prey). >....(as opossing > to all the other forms of big bloating with MT, like Renewed Vigor, > 5th Tradition...) could be handled by simply adding a "Not usable if > any Metuselah has lost pool as a result of this referendum" clause to > VC. So no KRC + VC, no Parity + VC, but it would still allow big cap > PRE voters to bloat actively by Political Stranglehold + VC, or even > Banishment + VC, and it would allow DT to make interesting pool > damaging votes without thinking about VC. .... Which is crap. To hamstring Voter Captivation to its use SOLELY as a defensive mechanism is fundamentally bad. The reasons are as follows, but not limited to.... 1) It makes getting up and running with large capacity decks even more dreadfully slow which impedes even more so one's ability to oust his prey. 2) Provides an unnecessary barrier to pro-active play. 3) Makes putting vampires with titles in play difficult for political decks. 4) Creates Unnecessary restricitons. To ban Voter Captivation does all the above, but even more so. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Currently, you can't really give a Political Action a blood cost and > expect it to mean anything (unless it is either absurdly huge or you > tack on an arbitrary "you can't gain blood during this vote", which is > both, ya know, kind of arbitrary and likely often *too much* of a cost > for certain effects). I Hypothetically, You are wrong. I hate to say it like that but you are, hypothetically that is. Putting a cost on a card means something. It means the card costs that amount. No amount of hyperbolic accounting will eliminate that. As a combat player, I am shocked that you would say something like that. That is like saying that Pushing the Limits cost of 1 isn't really a cost because you can play taste of vitae, which we both know is fallacious on the face of it. Try playing your pushing the limit when your Nossie lowbrow with one blood rushes a Tremere who then plays weather control at the beginning of combat. > > Then Laptop, J.S. Simmons and Tasha Morgan make it hard to create > > interesting, generic bleed boosters. But the Design Team has been able > > to route around that obstacle and create Robert Carter, with a very > > interesting cost. > > Yeah. He costs blood. Funny, that... Yet, you can play Forgery with a Perfectionist to alleviate the costs. I didn't see you climb up on the Empire State Building and start swatting airplanes out of the sky because that nifty combo exists. > > It is difficult to see why the Design Team has chosen to focus on Voter > > Captivation as an obstacle they must remove, when there are so many > > other solid, commonly used, powerful cards that turn up in VAST numbers > > of decks using that discipline because they're so very, very good, and > > because they're often hugely better cards than other equivalent cards of > > the same type for other clans or disciplines. > > I think there is a significant difference between the obstacles you > bring up (which are certainly valid examples of design issues that > need dealing with) and the Voter Cap issue--Voter Cap is a completely > concrete, direct obstacle to both: > > A) Making political cards cost blood/pool Nope. Costs are costs. > B) Making political cards that give you blood/pool ....and Nope. Benifits are benifits. The existance of Voter Captivation does not limit the imagination of the Design Group. I can't even see it limiting the imagination of the play testers. But if it does turn them into unimaginative drones whose only function in life is to count widgets, well that's their problem. > Both of which are avenues that are seriously underdeveloped in the > arena of political cards (PAs or modifiers or whatever). That Govern > is so good for 1 blood, or that Dementation has Kindred Spirits is a > more abstract obstacle to design, and while it requires the occasional > sidestep to get around, isn't as cut and dry as Voter Cap. Hypothetically, Neither of these are parallel to Voter Cap. Hypothetically, You are using a bad analogy. Hypothetically,You are using a direct mechanic rather than a indirect mechanic to measure a fringe effect. Hypothetically, The variables involved are not similar. Hypothetically, The number of votes you have do not directly impact how much damage a vote does. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, jr XZealot Hypothetically, Archon of the Swamp

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> That's pretty much missing my point, though. It's not about being an obstacle to >> design, it's about being too powerful. One of the consequences of this primary >> point, yes, is that it leads to, among other things, some small obstacle to >> designing PAs with blood costs that are balanced and whose balance is not >> immediately erased by VC. See my initial post in this thread. > > There is no empirical evidence supporting the assertion that Voter > Captivation is too powerful. Yes, there is. See my initial post. > The card has not had a dominating or > disruptive effect on the competitive environment in V:TES for the past > 12 years. Perhaps true. It would be broken if so. That does not address the question of it being too powerful, though.

> Hypothetically, Neither of these are parallel to Voter Cap. > Hypothetically, You are using a bad analogy. Hypothetically,You are > using a direct mechanic rather than a indirect mechanic to measure a > fringe effect. Hypothetically, The variables involved are not > similar. Hypothetically, The number of votes you have do not directly > impact how much damage a vote does. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, jr > XZealot > Hypothetically, Archon of the Swamp Norman S. Brown, jr is teh sex <3

LSJ wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > There is no empirical evidence supporting the assertion that Voter > > Captivation is too powerful. > > Yes, there is. See my initial post. All you did was cite mechanical information of the cards, examples of how one can use them, and your opinion as to their relative worth. You haven't cited examples of how the use of the card leads to an undue imbalance in the game. > > The card has not had a dominating or disruptive effect on the competitive > > environment in V:TES for the past 12 years. > > Perhaps true. It would be broken if so. That does not address the question of it > being too powerful, though. What metric are you using to rate a card's power? Why is the competitive environment not a viable metric? - Ben Peal

On Feb 8, 1:10 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > That is like saying > that Pushing the Limits cost of 1 isn't really a cost because you can > play taste of vitae, which we both know is fallacious on the face of > it. We've already gone over several of the reasons why Taste is more balanced than VC. > Try playing your pushing the limit when your Nossie lowbrow with one > blood rushes a Tremere who then plays weather control at the beginning > of combat. So what's the equivalent when comparing to VC? Yawp Court, I guess? > > > Then Laptop, J.S. Simmons and Tasha Morgan make it hard to create > > > interesting, generic bleed boosters. But the Design Team has been able > > > to route around that obstacle and create Robert Carter, with a very > > > interesting cost. > > > Yeah. He costs blood. Funny, that... > > Yet, you can play Forgery with a Perfectionist to alleviate the > costs. I didn't see you climb up on the Empire State Building and > start swatting airplanes out of the sky because that nifty combo > exists. Yes. But what you can't do is Minion Tap down to one, bleed for 3 and fill all the way back to capacity in the same action. Nor can you Govern + Conditioning and still expect to fill up. None of the suggested problems with or changes to VC surmise that it's overpowered to be able to gain _any_ blood back, but that it's overpowered to gain an _arbitrarily large amount_ of blood back. witness1 -believe the lie

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Ben Peal wrote: >>> There is no empirical evidence supporting the assertion that Voter >>> Captivation is too powerful. >> Yes, there is. See my initial post. > > All you did was cite mechanical information of the cards, examples > of how one can use them, and your opinion as to their relative worth. > You haven't cited examples of how the use of the card leads to an > undue imbalance in the game. Overpowered card = unbalanced card. Broken card leads to game imbalance. Not all overpowered cards break the game. >>> The card has not had a dominating or disruptive effect on the competitive >>> environment in V:TES for the past 12 years. >> Perhaps true. It would be broken if so. That does not address the question of it >> being too powerful, though. > > What metric are you using to rate a card's power? Why is the > competitive environment not a viable metric? The metric supplied by looking at similar effects from other cards, obviously. The competitive environment also shows the same: that VC is too powerful (by witnessing the effect it has when played in those environs -- the same effect it has when played in any other eviron). Just because you don't find that the competitive environ shows that it is broken doesn't alter that.

On Feb 8, 1:10 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Putting a cost on a card means > something. It means the card costs that amount. No amount of > hyperbolic accounting will eliminate that. As a combat player, I am > shocked that you would say something like that. That is like saying > that Pushing the Limits cost of 1 isn't really a cost because you can > play taste of vitae, which we both know is fallacious on the face of > it. Having a strike card that costs a blood in combat makes it that much more likely that you won't get to play the Taste in the first place-- if I spend a blood to play Pushing the limit, I'm that much more likely to get killed. By a Tremere who plays Weather Control at the beginning of combat. Conversely, paying a blood for a PA card does not so much make it that much more likely that you will not be able to play Voter Cap. > Try playing your pushing the limit when your Nossie lowbrow with one > blood rushes a Tremere who then plays weather control at the beginning > of combat. Hey! What do you know? In any case, the blood cost (unless it is an absurdly large cost) doesn't have the same effect on a political action. If I'm Arika, heck, even with 1 blood on me, and I play a PA that costs 1 blood, I go down to zero blood. I then play Bewitching. And have 4 votes already. And then 1 from the PA. And my pal Lucinde throws in another 3 votes. So I have 12 votes. And then maybe I tap Ventrue HQ. Or even play an Awe for zero blood for the extra vote. Which is a lot of votes. Likely enough to pass the PA in most games by enough of a margin. Without spending any blood. If I had a couple blood leftover, I could also Awe for another 5 or so votes, as necessary. And then I play Voter Cap, and end up with more blood than I started out with. And some extra pool. And have done whatever horrible thing to my prey I was doing anway. Giving a political action a cost of 1 blood or 1 pool, in the face of Voter Cap, is mostly irelevant. If you gave a PA a cost of 5 blood, yeah, ok, that would be a significant cost. But the only reason you whould have to give something such an absurd cost is 'cause of, ya know, Voter Cap. > Yet, you can play Forgery with a Perfectionist to alleviate the > costs. I didn't see you climb up on the Empire State Building and > start swatting airplanes out of the sky because that nifty combo > exists. My point was simply that the clever mechanism that Robert Carter uses to balance out his added power is, ya know, having a blood cost. 'Cause James was pointing out how you could come up with other, clever ways to make things cost something. Other than a blood cost. 'Cause, see, the obvious way to make something more powerful for an added cost is to give it a blood cost (like Robert Carter vs J.S. Simmons). Which, as noted, is difficult to do for PA cards. 'Cause of Voter Cap. > Nope. Costs are costs. Yes, they are. But if they don't have any impact on the minion paying them, they aren't really significant costs. I'm a 10 cap minion. I call a PA that costs 1 blood. I'm at 9 blood. I pass the vote by a margin of 4. I play Voter Cap. I'm full of blood, gain 2 pool, and still have blood left over. > ....and Nope. Benifits are benifits. Sure. But you'll note that there are very few vote cards that give you pool that have been developed since the original Jyhad set, and the ones that have been developed are really pretty dubious. And very few (if any) other action modifiers that give you blood or pool during political actions. When many of them are obvious possibilities. Likely 'cause the design team is like "Huh. That'd be cool. Except that Voter Cap already exists..." > The existance of Voter Captivation does not limit the imagination of > the Design Group. No, but it does limit their ability to apply standard costs to PA cards. You don't have to believe this. But I'm pretty certian that LSJ, as the head of the design group, said, more or less, "the existance of Voter Cap limits my ability to apply standard costs to PA cards". -Peter

In message <QbKyh.25576$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >ben...@gmail.com wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Ben Peal wrote: >>>> The card has not had a dominating or disruptive effect on the competitive >>>> environment in V:TES for the past 12 years. >>> Perhaps true. It would be broken if so. That does not address the >>>question of it >>> being too powerful, though. >> What metric are you using to rate a card's power? Why is the >> competitive environment not a viable metric? > >The metric supplied by looking at similar effects from other cards, obviously. That shows that a card is better than another. It doesn't show that one card is broken. For example, let's take a look at some permanent vote gainers: - Alamut: slow to gain votes, very hard to use as a shock factor, keys politics off a second strategy (bleed) - Oxford University, England: very expensive, only suitable for extensive use in a few strategies (such as Parity Shift) - Ventrue Directorate Assembly: expensive, but non-unique. Very fragile, in most circumstances - the built in action is very tempting and easy to use, even if you do include a butt-load of 2nd Tradition - Mausoleum, Venice: vulnerable to being screwed up by another player, and not a terribly large amount of votes available - Vox Senis: generates multiple votes, and for every action, but vulnerable to negotiation since each vote is controlled by a different Methuselah Then compare them to Power Structure: - Power Structure: generates a potentially large number of votes. Not fragile. Not prone to the whims of other Methuselahs (it's "every Lasombra you control", not even "every Lasombra"). Doesn't key off a completely different strategy - just bring out vampires. Isn't Power Structure a lot better than the other cards, taking its mechanics in the round? With a naive mechanics comparison, why do we not decide that Power Structure is broken? Why do we typically decide that the other cards have issues? We could do the same with vampire theft cards. Mind Rape and Spirit Marionette are significantly more pokey than Temptation or Corruption (from the clan and discipline that's supposed to have been good at this!). How are you moving from "(much) better" to "overpowered"? And how are you accounting for a politics being designed to do some things that other straegies aren't? Bleed doesn't have much by way of blood gain, for example, whereas politics and combat do. Just looking at mechanics has never been a decisive metric. >The competitive environment also shows the same: that VC is too >powerful (by witnessing the effect it has when played in those environs >-- the same effect it has when played in any other eviron). Just >because you don't find that the competitive environ shows that it is >broken doesn't alter that. Would you care to cite examples of tournaments that show it's overpowered? Not just very good for its deck, but actually overpowered. [ quoted text not captured ]

First of all, I´m not a fan of Voter Captivation. BUT... I don´t think changing the text of VC is the way to go here. As some people pointed out, there costs other than blood that can be added to the text of a PA. That should be enough to allow the creation of new PA cards, I suppose. To me, it´s the Awe/VC combo that seems to be the problem. How about issuing an errata to Awe, then? Something in the lines of "after playing Awe, you cannot play other action modifiers"?

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-884FB8.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > So play 12 Voter Cap and 12 Awe. I'm playing a deck like this right now, > and lemme tell you, it does great. The Awe and the Voter Caps? Never > dead cards. I suspect you are carrying - 16-18 vote cards - 8-12 Forgotten Labyrinth and/or a mix of other stealth or your playgroup has never heard of intercept and deserves to have your vote/Awe/Cap rammed down their collective throats.

In article <45cb9635$0$3567$815e...@news.qwest.net>, "news.qwest.net" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote: > I suspect you are carrying > - 16-18 vote cards > - 8-12 Forgotten Labyrinth and/or a mix of other stealth Pretty much. Well, more stealth than that, really, but not a ton more. And some Majesties. The deck is kind of stupidly effective, unless it is sitting next to a dedicated IG rush deck. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

"Derek Ray" <moot@i_dont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote in message news:8bCdnfK4c6KGTVTY...@giganews.com... > - -- blood/pool recursion is too prevalent and contributes to game length Geez, Derek, don't even start with this. Without some effective method to gain pool, the whole game degrades into a defensive block-and-bounce fest in order to stay alive. I would suggest that pool gain is plenty hard to come by right now. Why do you think [DOM] (Govern, Scouting Mission) and [PRE] (Enchant Kindred, Voter Cap) exist at the top echelon of tournament disciplines right now. Hint: It's not the bleed component - it's pool and speed. If reduction in pool recursion were going to be the way in which game length is limited (combat is promoted as a mechanic), I should surely go mad. Fortunately, LSJ has not been so inclinced (see Grooming the Protoge as an example). > - -- VC allows blood/pool recursion for free while still moving forward at > full speed (KRC, etc.) True, but KRC is 3 pool loss, requiring a lot more fragile setup than an 8 point bleed, or a 4-5 point bleed while gaining a pool (oh, and did I need to this one at my predator????). So full speed is a relative term - and I still maintain that the difficulty in completing a referedum, compared to "I Kindred Spirits at stealth" merits some additional benefit. BTW, if you're passing all your votes all games, let alone Capping them, I want to be in your tournament group. > - -- so, is it possible to nerf VC without hurting big vampires and vote > decks unnecessarily? Moot, as there is no evidence in competivite play that VC (or any existing pool gain) actually creates the situation you lead off the logic chain with.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <QbKyh.25576$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >> ben...@gmail.com wrote: >>> What metric are you using to rate a card's power? Why is the >>> competitive environment not a viable metric? >> The metric supplied by looking at similar effects from other cards, obviously. > > That shows that a card is better than another. It doesn't show that one > card is broken. For example, let's take a look at some permanent vote > gainers: Again confusing broken with overpowered. If you don't like using comparisons of power to investigate relative power, then there aren't many options left. > Would you care to cite examples of tournaments that show it's > overpowered? Not just very good for its deck, but actually overpowered. Pick any tournament in which a player used VC in her deck.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 news.qwest.net wrote: > "Derek Ray" <moot@i_dont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote in message > news:8bCdnfK4c6KGTVTY...@giganews.com... > >> - -- blood/pool recursion is too prevalent and contributes to game length > > Geez, Derek, don't even start with this. Why? It's true; has been for a long time. For some decks, their recursion capability only runs out when the deck itself runs out of cards. For some decks, not even then. One of the standard strategies at the highest levels has always been "bloat and deal 'til there are 3 players, then win." > Without some effective method to gain pool, the whole game degrades into a > defensive block-and-bounce fest in order to stay alive. Voter Captivation is far from the only effective method of gaining pool. (Alternately, if it were, it would then be by definition overpowered; QED. But it's not, and pretending that it is serves no purpose other than to distract from the discussion.) > I would suggest that pool gain is plenty hard to come by right now. Minion Tap, Blood Doll, and Tribute to the Master are available to all decks, along with a host of other clever tricks. I don't think pool gain is hard to come by at all. I think it's actually more difficult to get blood back onto vampires, though hardly an over-the-top task. > If reduction in pool recursion were going to be the way in which game length > is limited (combat is promoted as a mechanic), I should surely go mad. And here you have already made an assumption that reducing the ability to recurse pool/blood must perforce be by increasing combat as a mechanic. No such assumption is warranted. I think we all would prefer not to see the game turn into Rockem-Sockem-Robots. Nor does the reduction of blood/pool recursion require that everyone suddenly become knee-jerk defensive... especially if the design of the game is such that attempting to be completely defensive doesn't lead to a win. Is it possible to win by defending currently? >> - -- VC allows blood/pool recursion for free while still moving forward at >> full speed (KRC, etc.) > > True, but KRC is 3 pool loss, requiring a lot more fragile setup than an 8 > point bleed, or a 4-5 point bleed while gaining a pool (oh, and did I need > to this one at my predator????). Yes, and this "fragile" setup is why vote decks are one of the premier tier-1 archetypes of the game and have been for over ten years, being featured prominently in finals in numerous countries. Perhaps we have different definitions of "fragile". >> - -- so, is it possible to nerf VC without hurting big vampires and vote >> decks unnecessarily? > > Moot, as there is no evidence in competivite play that VC (or any existing > pool gain) actually creates the situation you lead off the logic chain with. I'll skip the ceremonial trading back-and-forth of anecdotal details and get to the point: Darby, you know better. I understand you don't want to see VC changed. And perhaps changing VC isn't the correct way to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. But if people would spend half the time discussing whether it were possible to change VC effectively that they do screaming that card changes are bad and "VC isn't broken!!", then perhaps we could have already all gotten to that point and begun looking in other directions. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFy6l9tQZlu3o7QpERAgSTAJ4unf9QBlzn1aCYvLNPpm0gHO3GmACfZD84 uN6jPhVJKFl+x3CYsp/FzYU= =+42k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-8FDCFF.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <45cb9635$0$3567$815e...@news.qwest.net>, > "news.qwest.net" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not quite sure what you > are getting at here... Exactly what I said. That even a handful of reasonably competent players of intercept would have you sitting on your hand of vote-modifiers, lamenting that more than a quarter of your deck is unlikely to see the light of day dependably - and that even if a vote does hit the table, you'll only clear 2 cards.

In article <45cbbee1$0$10301$815e...@news.qwest.net>, "news.qwest.net" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote: > That even a handful of reasonably competent players of intercept would have > you sitting on your hand of vote-modifiers, lamenting that more than a > quarter of your deck is unlikely to see the light of day dependably - and > that even if a vote does hit the table, you'll only clear 2 cards. And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? What you are addressing is a general weakness of the strategy of voting, not of Voter Captivation and/or how it interacts with Awe. If we were discussing a vote card that said "If this vote passes, you win the game", the same comments would hold. Would you then point out "that even a handful of reasonably competent players of intercept would have you sitting on your hand of auto-win votes..."? Much like you also could have said "that even a handful of reasonably competent players with bleed bounce would have you sitting on your hand of Return to Innocence..."? Oh, wait. People did say that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 8, 7:51 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 1:10 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: [...] > > > Nope. Costs are costs. > > Yes, they are. But if they don't have any impact on the minion paying > them, they aren't really significant costs. I'm a 10 cap minion. I > call a PA that costs 1 blood. I'm at 9 blood. I pass the vote by a > margin of 4. I play Voter Cap. I'm full of blood, gain 2 pool, and > still have blood left over. If costs are costs, then a blood cost is not the only cost that can have any impact on the minion paying it. There are other ways. Why this narrow-mindedness? I repeat (as I already mentioned in another post): Considering to power down Voter Captivation because it limits the Design Team's choices to create political actions with a blood cost (which they never had, traditionally) is a very weak reason. Too weak a reason. So it cannot be the real reason why. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

On Feb 8, 7:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [...] > Perhaps true. It would be broken if so. That does not address the question of it > being too powerful, though. Why is Voter Captivation too powerful *now*? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1170943962....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >On Feb 8, 5:09 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> But there are clear other obstacles in the game that the Design Team has >> chosen not to remove. >> >> - It is hard to create an interesting, balanced bleed card for 1 blood, >> when Govern the Unaligned is so strong. >> >> - It is hard to create an interesting, balanced bleed card for 0 blood, >> when Computer Hacking is very solid indeed. > >Yeah, ok, none of them are as >*good* as Govern, generally speaking--Scouting should be, but much >like Threats vs Conditioning, the 1 blood cost for 1 extra payload is >a better deal that it costs--but at least they fit into the design >paradigm and are theoretically balanced, and there is nothing built >into the game to specifically counteract the cost. This isn't just a Dominate thing, though. Computer Hacking makes it very difficult to create a neat card for a particular discipline (or title, trait, or whatever) that is just +1 bleed - why not play Computer Hacking? If Computer Hacking had been weaker - perhaps, 1 blood, Do Not Replace - it would be much easier to design in that gap. Yet the Design Team have happily explored alternatives costs, punishments and benefits for bleeds and bleed-like actions, without feeling the need to nerf cards that are design obstacles. Remember: All of the designs you imagine the Design Team overlooking are no less possible with the obstacle removed than with it in place, But the very common "power cards" are and have been design obstacles to creating new, vibrant cards for other disciplines. Yet the Design Team have chosen to work around the obstacles. >Like, if there were an action modifier that was "Play during a bleed. >If this bleed is successful, the acting vampire gains blood equal to >the pool lost by the target", A) I think most folks would agree that >it was completely insane and B) it would make cards like Slaughtering >the Herd (arguably not that good as a bleed card, sure, as the one >extra blood cost for the "unblockable by allies" part isn't that much >of an improvement) impossible to design and cost correctly. Probably so, but this is something that a naive mechanic comparison won't reveal. Oh look, Hypothetical Bleed Mod is about the same as VC, re-fill a vampire for doing what it does. But that's why naive mechanics comparisons are, frankly, a complete crock of shit. Where to start: 1) It is massively easier to bleed for a lot than it is to vote for a lot. You bleed for 8 and get 8 blood. I vote to do you 3 damage (KRC) and get 8 blood from a Voter Cap. Difference = large. I *cannot* increase the amount of damage a KRC does. 2) A bleed is blocked by one Methuselah. A vote is always blocked by two, until the end game. Your combat wall predator gets a chance to block the vote called by a mostly empty Arika, but not the chance to block the bleed. 3) Bleeds are not subject to referenda. You get enough stealth and don't get bounced, you win. It is not subject to Methuselahs voting it down, and bounce can be compared in many ways to Delaying Tactics or Vox Domini. 4) To play VC, the vote must be successful. That is, I set the terms, and those terms must have been enforced by a successful referenda. Not true with your bleed modifier, in that it can still be played on a bounce, and will benefit from the bounce. Were it "Only usable when you successfully bleed your prey", you might be doing something better. 5) Bleding is the most efficient ousting mechanism in the game. Having a powerful blood gain mechanism available to the most efficient ousting mechanism in the game seems less useful. That politics is less efficient as an ousting mechanism, by apparently conscious design choice, means that you can very probably give it nicer toys. >Currently, you can't really give a Political Action a blood cost and >expect it to mean anything (unless it is either absurdly huge or you >tack on an arbitrary "you can't gain blood during this vote", which is >both, ya know, kind of arbitrary and likely often *too much* of a cost >for certain effects). It would be perfectly possible to make, say, a >bunch of PAs that were Praxis Seizures or Crusades that each came with >a generic useful special ability (get an extra vote when you call a PA >with the acting Prince, get to untap if you successfully pass a >referendum with the acting Prince, whatever), and give them all an >added cost in blood or pool. But Voter Cap makes this a losing design >situation, as the blood/pool cost is effectively nullified, and then >some. Which is a different issue than trying to make a bleed card that >is equivalent to Govern. It certainly means *something*. How many VCs do you pack in the deck? A browse through the TWDA recently showed up 6-8 copies in a lot of situations, which seems perfectly adequate for most purposes. You won't always have one in hand, and if you have other votes to call, you won't always have the right vote or the right vampire to call it. If the vote itself is more controversial, more indiscriminate, or more likely to invoke the ire of other Methuselahs, you may well find yourself unable to pass it by a large amount. (Oh, except for Awe...) See, for example, Trumped-Up Charges as one political action where other Methuselahs are given votes to thwart you. >> Then Laptop, J.S. Simmons and Tasha Morgan make it hard to create >> interesting, generic bleed boosters. But the Design Team has been able >> to route around that obstacle and create Robert Carter, with a very >> interesting cost. > >Yeah. He costs blood. Funny, that... A nicely glib response, but missing the point. He costs blood. 1 blood. Woo. Now look at the *rest* of the card. He has an upkeep cost. If you don't *keep* paying blood, you lose the effect. If someone comes and pounds you in combat, you may well find yourself empty at the start of your turn and so lose the card. That is more than *just* VC can cope with. You need to keep blood on you at all times, or lose the card. Could you do something similar with a vote card? You bet your ass you could. And before we get all "Oh, but Robert Carter decks won't be able to regain blood *at all* like the VC decks will", let's remember that there are plenty of ways of gaining blood, if you choose to design for it. Fifth gives a nice hunk of blood, so does Renewed Vigor. Jake Washington can give you 4 whole blood. Entrenching can give you a lot of blood on a big vampire. Harvest Rites and the Hungry Coyote can give the Sabbat a very potent blood gain package. And you can do all this with a weenie and Heidelberg it over. >Both of which are avenues that are seriously underdeveloped in the >arena of political cards (PAs or modifiers or whatever). That Govern >is so good for 1 blood, or that Dementation has Kindred Spirits is a >more abstract obstacle to design, and while it requires the occasional >sidestep to get around, isn't as cut and dry as Voter Cap. So the Design Team can design around other obstacles that are abstract, but can't design around one that is obvious and in front of it. Even when this thread has included a *massive* amount of suggestions of how to do exactly that. Look at how many votes LSJ has designed that require a Prince or Justicar, which has apparently been a perfectly reasonable cost for, say, Parity Shift or First Tradition. When strong cards like those can be balanced with a specific sect and title requirement, do we need to go into blood or pool costs? And why do we need to go into blood and pool costs at all, when so many other costing mechanisms are available? Just because blood and pool are simple? That seems, you know, dumb. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1170960175....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> writes: >On Feb 8, 1:10 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> That is like saying >> that Pushing the Limits cost of 1 isn't really a cost because you can >> play taste of vitae, which we both know is fallacious on the face of >> it. > >We've already gone over several of the reasons why Taste is more >balanced than VC. There have been a number of assertions that Taste is weaker than VC, which seems reasonable. "More balanced" asserts that VC is unbalanced, and not just very good indeed, but there has been precious little by way of actually explaining how you go from VC being very good (which no-one denies) to VC being over-powered or broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray schrieb: > Nor does the reduction of blood/pool recursion require that everyone > suddenly become knee-jerk defensive... especially if the design of the > game is such that attempting to be completely defensive doesn't lead to > a win. Is it possible to win by defending currently? Weenie Intercept (most likely AUS) does very well in tournaments. And your only ousting mechanism there is bleeds for 1, so I consider them a "defend-only" deck because the only offensive part they have is very inherent to the game. > Yes, and this "fragile" setup is why vote decks are one of the premier > tier-1 archetypes of the game and have been for over ten years, being > featured prominently in finals in numerous countries. > > Perhaps we have different definitions of "fragile". Since the banishment of the table re-ordering votes it has declined in popularity (for obvious reasons) and has less finals appearance IMHO, perhaps someone can do some statistics here? ;-) I think fragile is referring to the fact that vote decks with PRE are usually very risky in terms of loose big or win big, like deal 4 pool damage, gain 2 pool and some blood VS. loose a lot of blood and cards due to one Delaying Tactics. > I understand you don't want to see VC changed. And perhaps changing VC > isn't the correct way to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. But > if people would spend half the time discussing whether it were possible > to change VC effectively that they do screaming that card changes are > bad and "VC isn't broken!!", then perhaps we could have already all > gotten to that point and begun looking in other directions. That is a very clever statement, Derek. I would agree if the process of taking player feedback for the reasoning behind changing a card was transparent. But if I compare to examples from the (even recent) past, the usual workflow would be that the topic of this thread would be changed to something in the lines of "Should there be an adjustment of game balance by modifying a vote-related card" and after a few people have agreed to this sub-thread in the 10th level the card gets changed. So people have become very "cautious" of such threads and it seems to me that they think it is necessary to really underline that there isn´t any problem with this certain card. I would welcome more efficient discussion, but that would require a) threads not trailing off in 100 directions (I find it very hard to follow) and b) a transparent process of taking players feedback into card design. -- johannes walch

On Feb 8, 12:42 pm, "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 8, 1:10 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > That is like saying > > that Pushing the Limits cost of 1 isn't really a cost because you can > > play taste of vitae, which we both know is fallacious on the face of > > it. > > We've already gone over several of the reasons why Taste is more > balanced than VC. And none of them really hold water. > > Try playing your pushing the limit when your Nossie lowbrow with one > > blood rushes a Tremere who then plays weather control at the beginning > > of combat. > > So what's the equivalent when comparing to VC? Yawp Court, I guess? There isn't an equivalent because voting is not equivalent to any other mechanic. We can though discuss why > > > > Then Laptop, J.S. Simmons and Tasha Morgan make it hard to create > > > > interesting, generic bleed boosters. But the Design Team has been able > > > > to route around that obstacle and create Robert Carter, with a very > > > > interesting cost. > > > > Yeah. He costs blood. Funny, that... > > > Yet, you can play Forgery with a Perfectionist to alleviate the > > costs. I didn't see you climb up on the Empire State Building and > > start swatting airplanes out of the sky because that nifty combo > > exists. > > Yes. But what you can't do is Minion Tap down to one, bleed for 3 and > fill all the way back to capacity in the same action. Nor can you > Govern + Conditioning and still expect to fill up. Again, direct versus indirect methods are not comparable. > None of the suggested problems with or changes to VC surmise that it's > overpowered to be able to gain _any_ blood back, but that it's > overpowered to gain an _arbitrarily large amount_ of blood back. None so vulnerable to so many variables as to make it nearly impossible to guarantee its success. Comments Welcome, [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans wrote: > If costs are costs, then a blood cost is not the only cost that can > have any impact on the minion paying it. There are other ways. Why > this narrow-mindedness? I repeat (as I already mentioned in another > post): Considering to power down Voter Captivation because it limits > the Design Team's choices to create political actions with a blood > cost (which they never had, traditionally) is a very weak reason. Too > weak a reason. So it cannot be the real reason why. And, as has been stated many times, including directly to you, it is not.

Damnans wrote: > On Feb 8, 7:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > [...] > >> Perhaps true. It would be broken if so. That does not address the question of it >> being too powerful, though. > > Why is Voter Captivation too powerful *now*? Why is it not too powerful *now*? If you mean, "why now when it wasn't it too powerful <some time in the past>?" then, of course, the answer would be: the assumption that it was not is not warranted.

On Feb 9, 1:17 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 7:51 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 1:10 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > [...] > > > > Nope. Costs are costs. > > > Yes, they are. But if they don't have any impact on the minion paying > > them, they aren't really significant costs. I'm a 10 cap minion. I > > call a PA that costs 1 blood. I'm at 9 blood. I pass the vote by a > > margin of 4. I play Voter Cap. I'm full of blood, gain 2 pool, and > > still have blood left over. That's what you want to do. But First...... 1) you have to stealth past any intercept. +1 intercept will shut your game down by either your predator or your prey. 2) you have to have enough votes to pass the vote. Your margin of victory is entirely arbitrary based upon the number of titles of the table and you may not be able to pass it at all. 3) You may have either your vote or your vampire's votes canceled by a single play of a card (Delaying Tactics or Irregular Protocall). 4) Don't forget Yawp Court which hasn't made it's impact know, but it guaranteed to throw a wrench in the big cap votes deck's cogs. > If costs are costs, then a blood cost is not the only cost that can > have any impact on the minion paying it. There are other ways. Why > this narrow-mindedness? I repeat (as I already mentioned in another > post): Considering to power down Voter Captivation because it limits > the Design Team's choices to create political actions with a blood > cost (which they never had, traditionally) is a very weak reason. Too > weak a reason. So it cannot be the real reason why. Again, you specifically contrived a situation that cost would have no impact. There are 8 other amounts of blood that your "10 caps" blood levels could be at where a blood cost has an effect. Comments Welcome, [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] But I want to know if Voter Captivation was considered to be too powerful some time in the past (such as when White Wolf was designing Sabbat War). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > >> The metric supplied by looking at similar effects from other cards, obviously. > > > That shows that a card is better than another. It doesn't show that one > > card is broken. For example, let's take a look at some permanent vote > > gainers: > > Again confusing broken with overpowered. So replace each instance of the word "broken" in that post with "overpowered". > If you don't like using comparisons of power to investigate relative power, then > there aren't many options left. "JUST looking at mechanics has never been a decisive metric." (emphasis added) After observing that one card does more than another card, how you make the determination that a card is bad for the game? For determining "brokenness" (game balance), we play games with the card and see if the card is disrupting game balance or gameplay. What do we do to determine "overpoweredness" (card balance)? How much more than another card must a card do in order for it to be "overpowered"? - Ben Peal

Damnans wrote: > On Feb 9, 12:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Damnans wrote: >>> On Feb 8, 7:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> Perhaps true. It would be broken if so. That does not address the question of it >>>> being too powerful, though. >>> Why is Voter Captivation too powerful *now*? >> Why is it not too powerful *now*? >> >> If you mean, "why now when it wasn't it too powerful <some time in the past>?" >> then, of course, the answer would be: the assumption that it was not is not >> warranted. > > But I want to know if Voter Captivation was considered to be too > powerful some time in the past (such as when White Wolf was designing > Sabbat War). It has always been as powerful as it is now -- its effect has not changed.

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > What do we do to determine "overpoweredness" (card balance)? How > much more than another card must a card do in order for it to be > "overpowered"? If you have an answer, please let me know. Otherwise, it falls to judgment, obviously.

On Feb 9, 6:43 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > That's what you want to do. But First...... Everything you write is completely true, but has nothing at all to do with whether or not Voter Cap, in and of itself, is too powerful. Everything you say would be true if Voter Cap said "play when a vote is successful. Gain 15 pool" too. That wouldn't make that particular card acceptable. I'm not saying that Voter Cap is *that* over the top. But it certainly is arguably too powerful for what it costs. > Again, you specifically contrived a situation that cost would have no > impact. There are 8 other amounts of blood that your "10 caps" blood > levels could be at where a blood cost has an effect. I don't know what to tell you. I regularly specifically don't play cards in combat that cost blood, like PtL and Decapitate, specifically because it costs a blood, and Taste isn't enough to counteract that cost. I'd never in a million years consider *not* playing a vote that costs a blood, simply because of Voter Cap. Heck, due to voter cap, I regularly play Awe, which has a relatively steep blood cost, simply because it's cost is not really an issue (due to Voter Cap). But that is me. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] And was the excessive power of Voter Captiavtion a problem back in the Sabbat War era? [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans wrote: > On Feb 9, 1:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > And was the excessive power of Voter Captiavtion a problem back in the > Sabbat War era? It's power level hasn't changed.

[ quoted text not captured ] But was it a problem then? [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans wrote: > On Feb 9, 2:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Damnans wrote: >>> On Feb 9, 1:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> And was the excessive power of Voter Captiavtion a problem back in the >>> Sabbat War era? >> It's power level hasn't changed. > > But was it a problem then? If is overpowered now and if the power hasn't changed, what conclusions are viable?

On Feb 9, 6:50 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 6:43 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > That's what you want to do. But First...... > > Everything you write is completely true, but has nothing at all to do > with whether or not Voter Cap, in and of itself, is too powerful. > Everything you say would be true if Voter Cap said "play when a vote > is successful. Gain 15 pool" too. That wouldn't make that particular > card acceptable. I'm not saying that Voter Cap is *that* over the top. But it doesn't and never will, so again you have contrived a specific example and in this case, one that is almost impossible to reproduce in a real game to prove your point. But you are trying to use this hyperbolic example to bestow the mantle of rationality on your unreasonable arguement, which is not the point. Is Voter Cap broken? If no, then don't fix what isn't broken. If you want to say it is and this has been your arguement, then the burden is on your to prove it. > > Again, you specifically contrived a situation that cost would have no > > impact. There are 8 other amounts of blood that your "10 caps" blood > > levels could be at where a blood cost has an effect. > > I don't know what to tell you. I regularly specifically don't play > cards in combat that cost blood, like PtL and Decapitate, specifically > because it costs a blood, and Taste isn't enough to counteract that > cost. I'd never in a million years consider *not* playing a vote that > costs a blood, simply because of Voter Cap. Heck, due to voter cap, I > regularly play Awe, which has a relatively steep blood cost, simply > because it's cost is not really an issue (due to Voter Cap). But that > is me. > That seems funny to me that you will say on one hand that you don't play with combat cards that cost blood because there is a RISK that you won't be able to compensate for that addtional cost even after a "successful" round of combat (in successful round, I mean one that you inflict more than one damage on the opposing minion and don't end up in torpor yourself). Given the exact same set of circumstances where the costs are roughly parallel, don't you see the negative impact that a cost on a political card affects both in your ability to power the card Awe, 2 less votes can be generated for each point of blood cost, and in the ability to recoup from Voter Cap which has a direct 1:1 loss for every point of blood cost on the card. This is just scratching the surface. A Delaying Tactic or a Irregular Protocal are cards that see play all the time and single-handedly screw-up your Minion Tap, Awe, Voter Cap engine. This engine which is pretty fragile, honestly. A single standing point of intercept can effectively reduce your playable handsize by intercepting your vote and leaving you with a handful of Vote Push and Voter Captivation which is impossible to cycle normally without a political action to pull them out of your hand. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp Everything is arguable, look at second-hand smoke and global warming the boogie men of politically-driven quack-science designed to take away your rights and your money. Oops ignore that.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. I am still totally in favor of "Leave the card alone". But I've been thinking about what could possibly be a "reasonable" change, if it had to be changed. One of the real issues of the power of VC (as "corrected" by your suggestion above) is that it is currently usable to "fill up *and* gain 2 pool" in the typical case. Which is strong (but, again, I don't think it's unreasonable strong, personally). Here's a suggestion for a wording that might still accomplish this, without weakening the card too much: Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the number of votes by which the referendum passed. {The current, unchanged, text} [PRE] This vampire burns 1 blood to gain 2 pool. Thoughts? Jozxyqk stirring the pot

Just tossing ideas... brainstorming, you know. VOTER CAPTIVATION Type(s): Action Modifier Discipline(s): Presence Rarity: Uncommon Only usable after a successful referendum. [pre] The acting vampire gains 2 blood. [PRE] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is half the number of votes the referendum passed by. Up to 2 of those blood counters may go to your pool instead of this vampire. If you wanted to gain a lot of blood from it, you´d have to really sweat... otherwise it would still be a nice card, I guess. Also, the blood should be moved to the pool only after the vampire has gained it (and after he has burned any excess blood). And sometimes you would even prefer to play it at the basic level, when the votes are tight...

On Feb 9, 5:23 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > This isn't just a Dominate thing, though. Of course it isn't. That was just a nice, easy example. > Computer Hacking makes it very difficult to create a neat card for a particular > discipline (or title, trait, or whatever) that is just +1 bleed - why not play Computer > Hacking? I don't think this is actually true. I mean, yeah, ok, I agree that Computer Hacking is *also* probably a bit over the power curve, but not so much that it is worth worrying about. But in any case, there are *plenty* of cards that give you +1 bleed for free, and comperable to Computer Hacking, yet have a reason to exist (Social Charm, Enchant, Threats, Changeling) due to either having a superior discipline level or some other advantage (like being a modifier, for instance). > But the very common "power cards" are and have been design obstacles to > creating new, vibrant cards for other disciplines. Yet the Design Team > have chosen to work around the obstacles. They have in places, sure (like using the Computer Hacking example, yeah, Bloodworkening and Fiendish Tongue are both examples of a "work around" that you are getting at). But they also have the simple option too (i.e. adding a blood cost). And both of those get used on a regular basis. For Vote cards, the simple option (i.e. adding a blood cost) isn't really viable. > It certainly means *something*. That is the crux of a great deal of this discussion. How much does a cost mean when it is incredibly easy to counteract that cost. For my money, the answer is "not that much". I could bring up every convoluted example in the world about how a blood cost of 1 or a combat card is much more significant than a blood cost of 1 for a political card, but those examples have already been made. A bunch of times. So I'll skip that part. But in the end, simply from the experience of playing a lot, personally, I never find the blood costs associated with vote cards (and vote strategies) to be remotely an issue in decks that use Voter Cap; playing Awe, Eldar Impersonation, Forgotten Labyrinth, whatever, simply don't have the same impact in a Presence based vote deck than they do in non Voter Cap enabled decks. Sure, of course there is *some* cost (i.e. paying a blood when you play a vote card means you have one less blood for Awe; paying a pool for a vote card means you only gain one pool off the voter Cap), but the issue is "how significant is that cost". And again, for my money, Voter Cap makes costs like this mostly insignificant. > A nicely glib response, but missing the point. He costs blood. 1 > blood. Woo. Heh. I thought so too :-) In any case, my point (in response to your point, which is like having a point in every direction, which is like having no point at all...) is that Rober Carter costs blood. Not just the blood to recruit him, but the blood to upkeep him. Which is slightly different than him just costing X blood to start with. But not that much, and still, is relying on the "simple" costing mechanism--he costs blood. Which is the simple costing mechanism that the deisgn team seems to feel is compromised for use on political cards. Even if it is a "1 blood per turn" cost, instead of just a "pay X blood now" cost. If Robert Carter had a non simple cost (i.e. that cost something *other* than blood), such as "Discard a card that requires a discipline during your untap, or burn Robert Carter" or "While Robert Carter is in play, you get 4 fewer transfers", then he'd be a good example of a "creative" costing mechanism (like, say, Fiendish Tongue compared to Computer Hacking). > So the Design Team can design around other obstacles that are abstract, > but can't design around one that is obvious and in front of it. Even > when this thread has included a *massive* amount of suggestions of how > to do exactly that. Sure--they obviously *can* do so (see: Eldest Command Undeath). But it seems like a problem that they feel (presumably) that the "simple" costing mechanism is out of their reach. And as the single card that puts it out of their reach is likely too powerful anyway, the math does itself. > That seems, you know, dumb. Well, ya know, I don't think so. But that is me.

[ quoted text not captured ] Just to add a voice on this theme. I agree with Peter on pretty much all he said in this long thread. I always liked political decks, i try to build some and VC is a no brainer. Sure you can build a deck with PA and not VC but is a weaker deck (as usual.... in my strictly personal opinion). I don't like cards that should always be there. so i'm all for some downgrading of VC. A bonus would be a version that brings back a referendum to Pass, not pass gaining the time usually lost on verifying it passes by one. If this adds to the equation the possibility of new and diverse PA. Then please go for it. Andrea

On Feb 9, 8:55 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Is Voter Cap broken? > If no, then don't fix what isn't broken. If you want to say it is and > this has been your arguement, then the burden is on your to prove it. Half of this thread has been about how Voter Cap is potentially overpowered. For various reasons. Which I don't want to re-list now. But they are all up above somewhere. > That seems funny to me that you will say on one hand that you don't > play with combat cards that cost blood because there is a RISK that > you won't be able to compensate for that addtional cost even after a > "successful" round of combat (in successful round, I mean one that you > inflict more than one damage on the opposing minion and don't end up > in torpor yourself). This is because of how politics work in general, as opposed to how combat works in general. The vast majority of the time that a political deck calls a political action, it passes. Otherwise, there would be no percentage at all in playing political decks. The same is not as true so true for combat. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Damnans wrote: > >>> On Feb 9, 1:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> And was the excessive power of Voter Captiavtion a problem back in the > >>> Sabbat War era? > >> It's power level hasn't changed. > > > > But was it a problem then? > > If is overpowered now and if the power hasn't changed, what conclusions are viable? Only the Design Team knows ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 7, 12:12 pm, "The Name Forgotten" wrote: > Again, I think change would be justified if it happened, but I > wouldn't want to be the person doing it, nor do I find it particularly > over-powering. Then again, if they changed fifth tradition because > they found it over-powering, then changing voter cap does seem > like a good idea, cos I don't see it to be any weaker a card than the old > fifth tradition. Just as an incidental comment (and maybe it has already been adressed elsewhere in this thread, but I'm not sure), I think Fifth Tradition may not actually be a good example. I don't know if many people still play it (people surely don't play it here), but it would be a shame if VC were changed to the point it would not really be worth playing anymore. Ok, maybe Fifth Tradition is not played because VC is so much better than it for getting blood back on your voters - which could be a further argument for fixing VC - but the point is still valid (that is, wallpaperizing VC would be worse than not changing it at all). Abraço, Luiz Mello

On Feb 9, 8:21 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 8:55 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Is Voter Cap broken? > > If no, then don't fix what isn't broken. If you want to say it is and > > this has been your arguement, then the burden is on your to prove it. > > Half of this thread has been about how Voter Cap is potentially > overpowered. For various reasons. Which I don't want to re-list now. > But they are all up above somewhere. > > > That seems funny to me that you will say on one hand that you don't > > play with combat cards that cost blood because there is a RISK that > > you won't be able to compensate for that addtional cost even after a > > "successful" round of combat (in successful round, I mean one that you > > inflict more than one damage on the opposing minion and don't end up > > in torpor yourself). > > This is because of how politics work in general, as opposed to how > combat works in general. The vast majority of the time that a > political deck calls a political action, it passes. Politics and Combat are fairly analogous when it comes to this point. 1) If lots of combat decks are being played then most of the time their combats are not successful, i.e. they are usually mutually destroying each other. 2) If lots of vote decks are being played then most of the time the votes will not be successful, obviously they can be and as such is the nature of politics. >Otherwise, there > would be no percentage at all in playing political decks. The same is > not as true so true for combat. Well.....Now that you mention it. Generally Political deck have to invest in titles, and titles are generally found on big vampires. So if you capture the number of actions of all the vampires who have ever acted there are across the board more vampires are bleeding or doing combat (bleeding being the vast majority) than are voting because there are more actions taken as a total by smaller, more numerous vampires. So you are more correct than you know it, as a percentage of actions taken out of the total amount of available actions of all vampires, political actions are in the minority by a large amount based upon every thing you have said. Basically, a successful voter captivation deck that you site is nothing more than a statistical anomaly that will be erased if voter captivation is weakened [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 9, 10:37 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > 1) If lots of combat decks are being played then most of the time > their combats are not successful, i.e. they are usually mutually > destroying each other. > 2) If lots of vote decks are being played then most of the time the > votes will not be successful, obviously they can be and as such is the > nature of politics. This is true, but due to the way Vote decks work, it is easier to pass a vote than it is to stop a vote, due to cards like Bewitching and Awe. Having two vote decks sitting next to each other is a very different situation than having two combat decks sitting next to each other--two combat decks adjacent end up with both of them getting killed. Two vote decks next to each other tend to result in a fairly normal relationship, and the one who draws more vote push tends to come out on top. I don't know about you, but when I see Vote decks at the table (or play vote decks), they tend to successfully pass votes a lot more often than not. Even if there are other Vote decks at the table. > Basically, a successful voter captivation deck that you site is > nothing more than a statistical anomaly that will be erased if voter > captivation is weakened I don't think this is actually true. Vote decks are pretty successful across the board. They are certainly more successful at ousting folks than Combat decks are. -Peter

On Feb 9, 11:00 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 10:37 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > 1) If lots of combat decks are being played then most of the time > > their combats are not successful, i.e. they are usually mutually > > destroying each other. > > 2) If lots of vote decks are being played then most of the time the > > votes will not be successful, obviously they can be and as such is the > > nature of politics. > > This is true, but due to the way Vote decks work, it is easier to pass > a vote than it is to stop a vote, due to cards like Bewitching and > Awe. I think that stopping a vote is easy. It just requires Delaying Tactics or Irregular Protocall. It wastes everything you have played so far. Honestly how often do you see Delaying Tactics get played? > Having two vote decks sitting next to each other is a very > different situation than having two combat decks sitting next to each > other--two combat decks adjacent end up with both of them getting > killed. Two vote decks next to each other tend to result in a fairly > normal relationship, and the one who draws more vote push tends to > come out on top. I don't know about you, but when I see Vote decks at > the table (or play vote decks), they tend to successfully pass votes a > lot more often than not. Even if there are other Vote decks at the > table. It is highly dependent on factors such as who has the edge and other random assorted titles floating around the table, which there is no analogy for either for combat or bleed. Ofter a Predator/Prey relationship between two vote decks significantly reduces the performance of both decks. > > Basically, a successful voter captivation deck that you site is > > nothing more than a statistical anomaly that will be erased if voter > > captivation is weakened > > I don't think this is actually true. Vote decks are pretty successful > across the board. They certainly can be, but when you remove Voter Captivation then you will remove a sizable portion the viable pool of vote decks. > They are certainly more successful at ousting folks > than Combat decks are. > That's a pretty low bar you are setting there. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:1171025436....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] You recognize where your examples don't overlap, though, right? I mean, if you're playing Awe to top up on a VC, you need blood to make it go. If a Vote were to cost, say, 2 blood, you'd need that available at the start of the action. Planning on Edler Impersonation or Forgotten Labyrinth? Leave a blood on for that. So even Arika will need at least 5 blood on her (assume one or two for theoretical PA, 2 for Awe, one for stealth, zero or one for DT safety margin) when running Political Actions that cost blood, which means that blood-costing political actions will make a person utilizing VC go more conservative on his Minion Tap, and the VC/MT effect is mitigated by the blood cost of the PA quite nicely. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Feb 9, 12:32 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > I think that stopping a vote is easy. It just requires Delaying > Tactics or Irregular Protocall. It wastes everything you have played > so far. Honestly how often do you see Delaying Tactics get played? In theory, you are correct. In practice, really, I don't actually see Delaying Tactics get played that much. Locally or in blind tournaments. There are probably reasons for this, but in general, in my experience, most of the time a vote deck calls a vote? It passes. > They certainly can be, but when you remove Voter Captivation then you > will remove a sizable portion the viable pool of vote decks. Again, no one is talking about *removing* voter cap. Just reducing its effectiveness. If Voter Cap is as hard to pull off as some folks seem to want to make it appear to be, caping it at 2 blood or 2 pool for a successful vote will be an *improvement* for the card... > That's a pretty low bar you are setting there. :P Fair enough :-) -Peter

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] What would have to be demonstrated in order for you to not change Voter Captivation? - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] Even if it is overpowered, that doesn't mean it would be changed. But if it were demonstrated that it is not overpowered, that would go a long way toward securing your goal. Indeed, that was the primary reason for the request for comments in my initial post in this thread - to hear reasoned arguments regarding the power of VC.

In message <1171033884.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Clément <lcm...@ig.com.br> writes: >Just as an incidental comment (and maybe it has already been adressed >elsewhere in this thread, but I'm not sure), I think Fifth Tradition >may not actually be a good example. > >I don't know if many people still play it (people surely don't play it >here), but it would be a shame if VC were changed to the point it >would not really be worth playing anymore. > >Ok, maybe Fifth Tradition is not played because VC is so much better >than it for getting blood back on your voters - which could be a >further argument for fixing VC - but the point is still valid (that >is, wallpaperizing VC would be worse than not changing it at all). Just as a second data point, a number of UK players have, in the past, discussed their unhappiness with Fifth Tradition with me. They could see that the original was very powerful, but felt that the rewritten version was just a little too weak. I believe it was Rob Treasure, way back when, who said he'd still consider it for inclusion in appropriate decks if it was 5 blood, but the 3 blood benefit (-1 + 4) didn't seem quite good enough. It's not unplayable by any stretch, but it seems to lack... something. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1171040415.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >On Feb 9, 10:37 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> 1) If lots of combat decks are being played then most of the time >> their combats are not successful, i.e. they are usually mutually >> destroying each other. >> 2) If lots of vote decks are being played then most of the time the >> votes will not be successful, obviously they can be and as such is the >> nature of politics. > >This is true, but due to the way Vote decks work, it is easier to pass >a vote than it is to stop a vote, due to cards like Bewitching and >Awe. Having two vote decks sitting next to each other is a very >different situation than having two combat decks sitting next to each >other--two combat decks adjacent end up with both of them getting >killed. Sort of. Scalpel Tongue is one card that the Design Team have created to deal with this situation. It's potentially very good as vote offence, and potentially very good as vote defence. You can include it for the former, but use it for the latter. Perhaps it would be better to look at more, and more useful, forms of vote interaction and defence that aren't *just* about vote defence. Scalpel Tongue is also useful to make your strategy go - other cards could be too. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > But if it were demonstrated that it is not overpowered, that would go a long way > toward securing your goal. > > Indeed, that was the primary reason for the request for comments in my initial > post in this thread - to hear reasoned arguments regarding the power of VC. The problem there is that you've made your determination of VC based on the subjective metric of your personal judgement. The most objective argument I can make is one of game balance, which you're dismissing because it determines "brokenness" and not "overpoweredness". I'm then left to using the same metric that you're using - subjective judgement. At which point, the argument devolves to my opinion versus your opinion. As much as I like my own opinion, I don't like the use of mere opinion comparisons for making a decision on this. Perhaps you'll grant weight to the collective opinion regarding the matter here on the newsgroup (insert jokes here), but even then, it wouldn't be a matter of reasoned argument (insert more jokes here), but one of an opinion poll. If I seem exasperated with you about this (ok, I am), it's because I'm used to arguing with you in objective terms, not subjective terms. For what they may be worth, here are my opinions on the matter: As far as I can tell, blood costs are irrelevant to the costing of political action cards (Eldest Command Undeath excepted), as the requirements and overhead for playing a political game are high enough. As it stands, PTO is the only political action with a blood cost, and one is certainly not going to be fretting about getting that one blood back. There are other political actions for which I would be more than happy to pay a blood for: Ancient Influence, Political Stranglehold, Con Boon, Reins of Power, Parity Shift, Banishment, Brinksmanship (already costs a pool), Archon, Alastor, and maybe even KRC, just off the top of my head. Compared to the vampires I have to bring out, the vote lock I have to get, and everything else that goes with getting a political deck to succeed, the cost of a blood seems irrelevant to me. Certainly the cost gets more and more relevant the higher the blood cost gets, but as it stands, I'm perfectly content with the costing scheme of requirements and overhead for political actions. I don't see what blood costs for political actions would really add to the game, apart from having more special cases like Eldest Command Undeath - and if they're special cases, then doing the textual dance around VC seems fine. With regards to requirements and overhead for political actions, I feel that you haven't done enough in that area in your development of the game. To date, you've made only two political actions with a clan requirement (Heirophant and Dogs of War), and I feel that this avenue should be explored. To date, you've made only one political action that requires a Justicar or Inner Circle Member (Alastor), and none that require a Prince or Primogen. Again, I feel that this avenue should be explored. I would also like to see more clan-based political action modifiers and reactions, as a way to represent a clan's ability to affect the political sphere in ways that their disciplines cannot. When it comes to issues of design hindrance, I find it intriguing that you're focussing on Voter Captivation, when Parity Shift and PTO appear to me to be more of a design hindrance. You may feel that VC is freebie bloat, but isn't Parity Shift even more so since the pool loss (what you were doing anyway) and the bloat are contained in one card? Isn't it difficult to design a political action for Justicars and Inner Circle Members since you have to come up with something that is good enough to play with alongside of or instead of PTO? Perhaps it is coincidence that you haven't created political actions for Princes and only one for Justicars and IC Members, but it doesn't look that way to me. I know you're not keen on bringing "brokenness" into this discussion, but it seems to me that if a given card appears to be overpowered, yet not disruptive to the game balance or gameplay, then other, similar cards might need to be brought to the level of the card you're worried about, rather than bringing that card down. Certainly one can't balance a game by making everything equally unbalanced, but perhaps it is the weaker cards that are out of balance. I really don't want 12 years' worth of Voter Captivations with incorrect text. I know that there are already 200+ cards with changed text, and adding one more might not seem like a big deal, but we have to draw the line somewhere or else the game's integrity suffers more than it already does. Please save text changes for matters of mechanical necessity. I understand and can clearly see that the original Jyhad set has numerous legacy problems with respect to future design. In an ideal world, you could just throw out that set and start again, but that would obviously be too disruptive. However, it appears that what you're doing is very slowly and gradually reworking that set, combined with making new cards that help steer the direction of the game to where it "should" be. While I've agreed with nearly all of the changes you've made to the original Jyhad cards, I think you can stop reworking that set now. - Ben Peal

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> But if it were demonstrated that it is not overpowered, that would go a long way >> toward securing your goal. >> >> Indeed, that was the primary reason for the request for comments in my initial >> post in this thread - to hear reasoned arguments regarding the power of VC. > > The problem there is that you've made your determination of VC based > on the subjective metric of your personal judgement. The most > objective argument I can make is one of game balance, which you're > dismissing because it determines "brokenness" and not > "overpoweredness". I'm then left to using the same metric that you're > using - subjective judgement. I'm using objective data -- comparisons to other cards (and the subjective judgment that free blood/pool is good for a deck's ability to win).

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 ben...@gmail.com wrote: > For what they may be worth, here are my opinions on the matter: Good points, Ben. I just wanted to add a couple more. We're talking about fixing Voter Captivation not because it's regarded as broken, but because it's regarded as overpowered. That is to say that the card isn't necessarily causing problems. It's simply stronger than it should be. I can think of a lot of cards that that's true of. That shouldn't be the measure for determining whether or not a card gets changed. We might as well just scrap this game and start over from scratch (not necessarily a terrible idea IMO, but I know it wouldn't fly with the bulk of the vtes player base). Anyway, let's not. The thing that really bugs me about this is there's a very obvious flaw in this game that isn't being addressed. That is that it's much better to buy three 3 capacity vampires than it is to buy one 9 capacity vampire. Voter Captivation is one of the few exceptions to this rule. I'd be a lot more comfortable with the notion of "fixing" Voter Captivation if the weenie problem were dealt with first. Matt Morgan

LSJ wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > I'm then left to using the same metric that you're > > using - subjective judgement. > > I'm using objective data -- comparisons to other cards (and the subjective > judgment that free blood/pool is good for a deck's ability to win). That you're using objective data is clear. This card does more than that card. The problem is that your method of determination based on that data is subjective - one of personal judgement/opinion. If you want your conclusions to be objective, then both your data and your method of determination must be objective. - Ben Peal

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] But since the comparison cannot be done one a "direct" basis because the mechanics between e.g combat and vote are quite different "comparison to other cards" doesn´t strike me as objective data. Furthermore I want to cite a basic principal of science: sampling data *always* interfers with the data itself since the "sampling device" intrudes the system that is sampled, even if it might be only very marginal. So you asking this questions and giving some of your very subjective views is allready influencing the outcome of the discussion (in whatever direction). If you want your "data" to be as objective as possible you should refrain from making comments until people are done discussing. As it stands now the "data" gets varied on the fly by your opinions. -- johannes walch

Peter D Bakija schrieb: > On Feb 9, 12:32 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> I think that stopping a vote is easy. It just requires Delaying >> Tactics or Irregular Protocall. It wastes everything you have played >> so far. Honestly how often do you see Delaying Tactics get played? > > In theory, you are correct. In practice, really, I don't actually see > Delaying Tactics get played that much. Locally or in blind > tournaments. There are probably reasons for this, but in general, in > my experience, most of the time a vote deck calls a vote? It passes. > You should really come to play over here with some vote decks, you will face a lot of DT during the day :) -- johannes walch

On Feb 9, 11:51 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 12:32 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > I think that stopping a vote is easy. It just requires Delaying > > Tactics or Irregular Protocall. It wastes everything you have played > > so far. Honestly how often do you see Delaying Tactics get played? > > In theory, you are correct. In practice, really, I don't actually see > Delaying Tactics get played that much. Locally or in blind > tournaments. There are probably reasons for this, but in general, in > my experience, most of the time a vote deck calls a vote? It passes. That's funny because lot's of player that I know figure that 2 Delaying Tactics is a minimal vote defense that needs to go in every deck. That's no including the Direct Interventions that see play all the time. Yes, I will concede that Direct Intervention is not an arguement. I have seen vote decks jam on political actions and have to call failing votes to cycle their hands. I have seen it alot actually now that I think about it. > > They certainly can be, but when you remove Voter Captivation then you > > will remove a sizable portion the viable pool of vote decks. > > Again, no one is talking about *removing* voter cap. Just reducing its > effectiveness. If Voter Cap is as hard to pull off as some folks seem > to want to make it appear to be, caping it at 2 blood or 2 pool for a > successful vote will be an *improvement* for the card... It is hard to line up your hand to get the Voter Cap off. You actually have to manage your hand to do so. I know that's nothing for you because you play combat and hand management is a required specialization, but it is every bit of a dead card until you get past blocks, past votes, and past any sort of last minute nastiness. [ quoted text not captured ]

Those who don't wish to participate in a constructive discussion are free not to, of course.

In article <1171056511....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > That's funny because lot's of player that I know figure that 2 > Delaying Tactics is a minimal vote defense that needs to go in every > deck. That may be the case. I haven't see it. The last big tournament I played a vote deck in (Origins this last summer), I did not see a single DT the whole event. Nor did I ever get anything DIed. Most of the votes I called passed. I Voter Capped for a lot, often. Granted, I didn't do so well, as my deck was not that good and I was stupid. But in terms of calling and passing votes, it did fine. Heck, we had two fairly big Storyline events over the last few months locally (one had 18 people, one had about a dozen). Those were filled to the brim with vote decks, and everyone *knew* there would be tons of vote decks. Didn't see any Delaying Tactics in those events, either. > I have seen vote decks jam on political actions and have to call > failing votes to cycle their hands. I have seen it alot actually now > that I think about it. Sure. That happens. But again, this is a problem with *voting* not with any specific vote related card. To go back to an analogy I made earlier (which you dismissed as absurd :-), everything you are saying is completely true about voting in general. But at a certain point while analyzing vote related cards, you have to postulate that you can call a vote and you can pass a vote more often than not. If you constantly rely on "But voting is hard" as the balance factor for political actions and vote cards, you end up with "Super KRC: Allocate 10 points of damage among 2 methuselahs. If this vote passes, those methuselahs lose 2 pool for each point so allocated.", 'cause you could always defend it by saying "But voting is hard!" Yes. That is an exceptionally absurd example. But the absurdity is just a matter of degree. Yes. Voting is hard (but not so hard that Vote decks don't win tournaments on a regular and consistent basis). Sometimes you get blocked. Sometimes you get voted down. Sometimes your opponent plays DT or DI or Vox Sennis. Yes. But when you are looking at the relative strength or weakness of cards used in political actions, at a certain point, you have to look past this, and assume that more often than not, a Vote is going to be successfully called and passed. And assess the vote card (or modifier for political actions) based on that. If you constantly try to justify vote cards by saying "But voting is hard!", you can't ever accurately analyze it's power level. Yes. Voting is hard. Which is built in as a base line for *all* vote related cards--"But Voting is hard!" is why KRC, Con Ag, and Con Boon are all reasonable cards (otherwise, a disciplineless action that can be taken by any 1 cap vampire in the game and will cause your opponents to lose a total of 5 pool would be absurd--there would never be a discipliness action that did this. It is ok as a vote card, though, 'cause voting is hard.) At a certain point, you need to look at the vote card and assume that most of the time, it is going to work. 'Cause most of the time, it does. > It is hard to line up your hand to get the Voter Cap off. You > actually have to manage your hand to do so. I know that's nothing for > you because you play combat and hand management is a required > specialization, but it is every bit of a dead card until you get past > blocks, past votes, and past any sort of last minute nastiness. Yes. This is true. It would be just as true if it gave you 10 pool instead of 8 blood and 2 pool. And would be just as true if it only gave you a maximum of 2 blood *or* 2 pool. The issue is if the card is too powerful assuming it *does* work. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <eqioas$n66$2...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > You should really come to play over here with some vote decks, you will > face a lot of DT during the day :) If there are that many Delaying Tactics in circulation, why does anyone play Vote decks? And if no one plays Vote Decks, all those DTs suddenly become dead cards... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 9, 5:46 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Yes. Voting is hard (but not so hard that Vote decks don't win tournaments > on a regular and consistent basis). Just for comparisons sake, I checked the TWDA, and 6 of the 20 most recent TWDs are primarily vote related. So if this means anything, it is that Vote decks are still doing just fine. Even when DI is an uncommon and everyone includes 6 DT in every deck they build. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] ....and here I thought that 6 out of 20 was a minority. .....even though it appears that you are talking to yourself, so I have no idea what this is in reference to. ....how many of those were large cap voter captivation decks, that are relavent to this discussion? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 9, 4:46 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171056511.351780.80...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > That's funny because lot's of player that I know figure that 2 > > Delaying Tactics is a minimal vote defense that needs to go in every > > deck. > > That may be the case. I haven't see it. Probably because the banning of the two greatest offenders (Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure) have been banned, but what do I know? > The last big tournament I played a vote deck in (Origins this last > summer), I did not see a single DT the whole event. Nor did I ever get > anything DIed. Most of the votes I called passed. I Voter Capped for a > lot, often. Granted, I didn't do so well, as my deck was not that good > and I was stupid. It can't be broken if stupid players use it and don't win. :P >But in terms of calling and passing votes, it did > fine. Heck, we had two fairly big Storyline events over the last few > months locally (one had 18 people, one had about a dozen). Those were > filled to the brim with vote decks, and everyone *knew* there would be > tons of vote decks. Didn't see any Delaying Tactics in those events, > either. Well, that seems a little crazy that the Reverend Redneck storyline didn't scream DELAYING TACTICS!, since a vote gets you a free assault rifle and whatnot. > > I have seen vote decks jam on political actions and have to call > > failing votes to cycle their hands. I have seen it alot actually now > > that I think about it. > > Sure. That happens. But again, this is a problem with *voting* not with > any specific vote related card. To go back to an analogy I made earlier > (which you dismissed as absurd :-), everything you are saying is > completely true about voting in general. Don't make me do it again, because I will. Okay I'm easy. How do you separate declaring a vote, from going unblocked, from voting, from succeeding with voting, from playing a card that is dependant upon suceeding with voting? (because voter captivation is the last card in that chain) >But at a certain point while > analyzing vote related cards, you have to postulate that you can call a > vote and you can pass a vote more often than not. I can postulate gaining 8 blood from a Taste of Vitae as well, does that make Taste broken? >If you constantly rely > on "But voting is hard" as the balance factor for political actions and > vote cards, you end up with "Super KRC: Allocate 10 points of damage > among 2 methuselahs. If this vote passes, those methuselahs lose 2 pool > for each point so allocated.", 'cause you could always defend it by > saying "But voting is hard!" Again, with the mythical cards that are so over the power curve to be absurd on the face of it. What gives? How about "I Shot the Sherrif, But I Did NOT Shoot the Deputy, Requires a titled vampire. Allocate 7 points between at least 3 methuselahs for each point of allocated the chosen methuselah loses 1 pool" with a cost of 2 blood? Does that seem more reasonable to you? > Yes. That is an exceptionally absurd example. But the absurdity is just > a matter of degree. This is like Three Stooges absurd, not Clever and Intuitively Absurd. >Yes. Voting is hard (but not so hard that Vote decks > don't win tournaments on a regular and consistent basis). Sometimes you > get blocked. Sometimes you get voted down. Sometimes your opponent plays > DT or DI or Vox Sennis. Yes. But when you are looking at the relative > strength or weakness of cards used in political actions, at a certain > point, you have to look past this, and assume that more often than not, > a Vote is going to be successfully called and passed. And assess the > vote card (or modifier for political actions) based on that. > > If you constantly try to justify vote cards by saying "But voting is > hard!", you can't ever accurately analyze it's power level. Yes. Voting > is hard. Which is built in as a base line for *all* vote related > cards--"But Voting is hard!" is why KRC, Con Ag, and Con Boon are all > reasonable cards (otherwise, a disciplineless action that can be taken > by any 1 cap vampire in the game and will cause your opponents to lose a > total of 5 pool would be absurd--there would never be a discipliness > action that did this. It is ok as a vote card, though, 'cause voting is > hard.) > > At a certain point, you need to look at the vote card and assume that > most of the time, it is going to work. 'Cause most of the time, it does. I don't see it around here, because titled vampires are common and people hate votes on the face of them. Combat and Intercept is popular as well. > > It is hard to line up your hand to get the Voter Cap off. You > > actually have to manage your hand to do so. I know that's nothing for > > you because you play combat and hand management is a required > > specialization, but it is every bit of a dead card until you get past > > blocks, past votes, and past any sort of last minute nastiness. > > Yes. This is true. It would be just as true if it gave you 10 pool > instead of 8 blood and 2 pool. And would be just as true if it only gave > you a maximum of 2 blood *or* 2 pool. The issue is if the card is too > powerful assuming it *does* work. But it doesn't do that. Are you now saying that it is too weak? ....or are you just too clever for me? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171077138....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > Probably because the banning of the two greatest offenders (Dramatic > Upheaval and Kindred Restructure) have been banned, but what do I > know? That could be it. But everyone in this thread (well, ok, except for me) seems to think that Delaying Tactics is as common as dirt, and so every vote ever called has a 50% chance of getting DTed. But in my experience, I just haven't seen this. Once and a while, I run into a deck with a lot of them. Once and a while, I run into a deck with one or two. Most of the time, I don't see them at all. > It can't be broken if stupid players use it and don't win. :P I kept hoping I wasn't stupid. But sadly, not so much, so as much as Voter Cap is incredibly good, it just couldn't save me from my own stupidity. > Well, that seems a little crazy that the Reverend Redneck storyline > didn't scream DELAYING TACTICS!, since a vote gets you a free assault > rifle and whatnot. Again, I know. I'd have figured that DT would be all over the place in the storyline. But in two pretty big storyline tournaments, I didn't see one. There might have been one in there somewhere that I didn't see get played, but it wasn't like there were 6 in every deck or anything. > Don't make me do it again, because I will. Okay I'm easy. How do you > separate declaring a vote, from going unblocked, from voting, from > succeeding with voting, from playing a card that is dependant upon > suceeding with voting? (because voter captivation is the last card in > that chain) You simply *have* to let go of "but voting is hard" at some point in the analysis of cards. We all know voting is hard (although, again, not so hard that vote decks don't regularly win tournaments. And a good percentage of them, apparently). And the "but voting is hard" is inherent in the vote cards that exist (again, you aren't going to see a disciplinless, free action that makes your prey lose 4 pool that *isn't* a political action, now are you? No, 'cause voting is hard.) As otherwise, there is simply no way to ever come to any sort of viable conclusion about the *effect* of a vote card. If every vote card is judged by "But it is so hard to make work! It'll get blocked! Or DTed! Or voted down! Every time!", then *no* vote card will ever look good enough ("Parity Shift? That card sucks! It might get blocked! PTO? Trash! Someone might DT it!") > I can postulate gaining 8 blood from a Taste of Vitae as well, does > that make Taste broken? No. 'Cause killing someone and tasting their 8 blood is really hard to win with. Con Agging someone for 4 pool and gaining 6 blood and 2 pool at the same time *isn't* hard to win with. And no one is saying that Voter Cap is broken. Just likely too good. > Again, with the mythical cards that are so over the power curve to be > absurd on the face of it. What gives? It is a over the top example in hopes that you'll see what I'm talking about, but apparently not. Everything that you are saying about vote cards as an example of what is not so good about Voter Cap is as true for the worst vote card (Regaining the upper Hand?) as it is of the best vote card (Parity Shift?) According the the logic of "but voting is hard", there is no valid way to say that Parity Shift is good while Regaining the Upper Hand is bad. 'Cause voting is hard. So no vote will ever get called or passed. So that Parity shift is good and Regaining the Upper Hand is bad is irrelevant. 'Cause in the world of "but voting is hard", neither of them will ever be successfully called anyway. > I don't see it around here, because titled vampires are common and > people hate votes on the face of them. Combat and Intercept is > popular as well. You don't see vote decks work? Ever? I don't know what to tell you. 6 of the 20 most recent TWDs are heavily vote related. So apparently, they can win. > ....or are you just too clever for me? Apparently, I'm too clever for you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171075846....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > ....and here I thought that 6 out of 20 was a minority. Uhh, when there are many, many different strategies that can win (Bleed? Combat? Intercept? Vote? Whatever?), 6 out of 20 is a pretty reasonable percentage, I'd say. > .....even though it appears that you are talking to yourself, so I > have no idea what this is in reference to. Well, I made the unsubstantiated claim of "vote decks win on a regular basis". After saying that, I went to go check the TWDA to see if this was, in fact the case. I arbitrarily counted down the top 20 most recent decks. 6 of them were heavily vote related (i.e. their primary ousting mechanism revolved around votes and vote support cards). That strikes me as a pretty reasonable basis for "vote decks win on a regular basis". > ....how many of those were large cap voter captivation decks, that are > relavent to this discussion? Most of them? In any case, I was simply refuting (in my statement of "vote decks win on a regular basis") your claim that "But voting is hard! Votes never pass! You are always blocked! Or Delaying Tacticed! or voted down!" (I'm taking liberties with the exclamation points, there--I realize that you aren't actually the Aquabats!) As about 1/3 of the 20 most recent tournament winning decks in the TWDA are, ya know vote decks, I'd not feel bad about saying that "vote decks win on a regular basis". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-8506DA.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <1171077138....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: >> Again, with the mythical cards that are so over the power curve to be >> absurd on the face of it. What gives? > >It is a over the top example in hopes that you'll see what I'm talking >about, but apparently not. What you're trying to say is "Just because something uses politics doesn't mean it can't be broken." Well, duh. None of the people participating in the discussion are five years old and unable to cope with this truly radical concept. > Everything that you are saying about vote >cards as an example of what is not so good about Voter Cap is as true >for the worst vote card (Regaining the upper Hand?) as it is of the best >vote card (Parity Shift?) According the the logic of "but voting is >hard", there is no valid way to say that Parity Shift is good while >Regaining the Upper Hand is bad. That's just crap. The logic of "voting is hard" is just that - voting is hard. It is simply not as easy as bleed. Thus, wild comparisons of "Hey, this card would be totally broken if we gave it to bleed" are, perhaps, interesting but ultimately don't mean a whole lot. Nor does creating a broken vote card. They show that politics can be broken, not that Voter Captivation is broken. And there are plenty of valid ways of showing that Parity Shift is good while Regaining the Upper Hand isn't (save for some corner case Form of Corruption type situations, where it is still difficult). You could start with a naive mechanics comparison, and here that would have some validity, because they're both votes. We're not comparing Renewed Vigor with Awe, we're comparing a vote with a vote. And the naive mechanics comparison would show the possibility of a 10 pool swing (5 down, 5 up) or some combination spread among multiple Methuselahs, relative to gaining the Edge. Then the concept of gaining and losing pool as a strategy to winning would probably win out against Regaining the Upper Hand. Then we could start on evidence of tournaments and competitive play generally (i.e. anything other than a demo for noobs, or pissing around in a casual game with fun decks, or some really whacked out Build Your Own Storyline where the usual assumptions don't hold). We could see that, in practise, the decks using Parity Shift do better than the decks using Regaining the Upper Hand. And we could see the swing that Parity Shift brings about when played - taking you from a (usually intentional) weaker position to a stronger position, and such. One example of this would be found in the Tournament Winning Deck Archive. Parity Shift turns up many times, in many political decks with Princes or Justicars on hand. Regaining the Upper Hand, first printed in the same set as Parity Shift, turns up... zero times. But what you can't do is just say "Well, it would be totally broken if a bleed could take 5 pool from a Methuselah and give me that 5 pool!" and expect that to stand up to rigorous scrutiny, just like you can't say "Well, it would be totally broken if bleed got Voter Captivation!" and expect that to prove that Voter Captivation is overpowered. Other things that bleed can't do include: - giving you and your friends extra master phase actions - burning vampires of your choice (Eldest Command Undeath, Protect Thine Own) - prevent people from taking a turn without paying a stiff price. And few people would want bleed to be able to do these things. But similarly, we wouldn't say "Man, it would be totally broken if you gave these things to bleed, so they're broken for vote." And why does politics get to do things like this? One facet is because... voting is hard. Another facet is that... the direct ousting element of voting is generally less efficient than bleed. You cannot evaluate Voter Captivation in isolation, saying "Well, that applies to all votes." That's pretty much the entire point. It applies to all votes. Voter Captivation is inextricably linked with votes. You cannot separate Voter Captivation from the need to be successful at politics. Fifth Tradition is just an action. Renewed Vigor is just an action. Bleed + Hypothetical VC-like Mod is a bleed action. And since bleeds are easier and more efficient than votes, the fringe benefits should - in general - be generally weaker. >'Cause voting is hard. So no vote will >ever get called or passed. So that Parity shift is good and Regaining >the Upper Hand is bad is irrelevant. 'Cause in the world of "but voting >is hard", neither of them will ever be successfully called anyway. No, they can both be called, and both be passed. But it's harder. It needs more setup. It's vulnerable at more points. Solid bleed requires a 3 cap with Obf + Bleed discipline (Presence, Dominate, Dementation being obvious candidates). Solid vote requires more effort - vampires with titles, setup actions with Praxis Seizures (that need to pass), permanent vote gain masters (that you need to put in play). This isn't "Oh woe is politics, it can't do anything." It's acknowledging that politics isn't the same as other strategies, and has a number of weaknesses compared to other strategies - and so has been granted various bonuses compared to other strategies. >> I don't see it around here, because titled vampires are common and >> people hate votes on the face of them. Combat and Intercept is >> popular as well. > >You don't see vote decks work? Ever? I don't know what to tell you. 6 of >the 20 most recent TWDs are heavily vote related. So apparently, they >can win. They can, and I doubt he's saying they can't. It's just that people do play vote defence, and so it's not a no-brainer by any stretch, and suffers from all sorts of likely problems which slow it down, and mean that Voter Captivation isn't played on every vote to generate TWENTY SEVEN BILLION POOL. Apparently, no-one round you has discovered vote defence. But that's like saying we should downgrade bleed because no-one plays Deflection, even though when defended against well, bleed has its own problems (and compensatory benefits - like, you know, winning). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 10, 9:38 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <pdb6-8506DA.23251609022...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D > > Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> writes: > >In article <1171077138.846102.25...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] James, I'm sorry but while i can see your point that comparison of votes with other game techs is not valid, i still cannot see any point in your mail in favor of voter captivation. I fully agree with you on politics ...(requote) > This isn't "Oh woe is politics, it can't do anything." It's > acknowledging that politics isn't the same as other strategies, and has > a number of weaknesses compared to other strategies - and so has been > granted various bonuses compared to other strategies. but the bonuses should be limited to political actions. some referendums (referenda?) are stronger in result than what you can have outside politics, fine. Why do i have to add to this a card that modifies the referendum in such a good way that i would never think to play a political deck without? I personally don't like cards that SHOULD go in every deck of a type and VC is THE card in presence vote decks (that is, by strong majority i imagine, vote decks) As an example I think that having votercap as a political action would be seen as a perfectly viable PA, fits in some decks, not in others, would not be played in all presence political deck but is useful for bloat in a non vote heavy environment. Probably playing a Pa like this would also pass a DTplay of my prey (saved for the next KRC). My opinion is that this PA cannot be created because with a modifier as VC it would arrive OVER the powercurve. Streching this example. I say VC is aviable Political Action that at the moment doubles as an action modifier. would it be possible to double other votes as action modifier? Modified stranglehold action modfier only play after succesful referendum, only play once per game every player gains 3 pool for each vamp above 7 Modified territory only play after succesful referendum Choose a location and a matuselah the mathuselah takes control of the location Modified peace treaty only play after succesful referendum all weapons are destroyed etc etc .....all are a little too strong in my opinion.they should have a full vote procedure to limit it; if is a surprise secondary effect on another vote is not good. I know...streched example but maybe tells that if something is good as a vote it should not be a vote modifier. Hey LSJ! what about changing VC, with this exact power, to a political action! Andrea

On Feb 9, 11:33 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171075846.909200.10...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > ....and here I thought that 6 out of 20 was a minority. > > Uhh, when there are many, many different strategies that can win (Bleed? > Combat? Intercept? Vote? Whatever?), 6 out of 20 is a pretty reasonable > percentage, I'd say. A REASONABLE percentage and yet you still will post here that Voter Captivation is potentially broken. > > .....even though it appears that you are talking to yourself, so I > > have no idea what this is in reference to. > > Well, I made the unsubstantiated claim of "vote decks win on a regular > basis". After saying that, I went to go check the TWDA to see if this > was, in fact the case. I arbitrarily counted down the top 20 most recent > decks. 6 of them were heavily vote related (i.e. their primary ousting > mechanism revolved around votes and vote support cards). That strikes me > as a pretty reasonable basis for "vote decks win on a regular basis". ....and yet again, you are posting here that Voter Cap is potentially broken. > > ....how many of those were large cap voter captivation decks, that are > > relavent to this discussion? > > Most of them? ....and even with a REASONABLE amount of victories, you will post here that it is potentially broken. > In any case, I was simply refuting (in my statement of "vote decks win > on a regular basis") your claim that "But voting is hard! Votes never > pass! You are always blocked! Or Delaying Tacticed! or voted down!" (I'm > taking liberties with the exclamation points, there--I realize that you > aren't actually the Aquabats!) I never said any of the the above. I said that to actually play Voter Captivation so that it isn't a dead card in your hand then you must manage your hand around the fact that for all the reasons above that the card would be rendered unplayable. > As about 1/3 of the 20 most recent tournament winning decks in the TWDA > are, ya know vote decks, I'd not feel bad about saying that "vote decks > win on a regular basis". You're feelings are important in a rational debate. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 9, 11:25 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171077138.846102.25...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Probably because the banning of the two greatest offenders (Dramatic > > Upheaval and Kindred Restructure) have been banned, but what do I > > know? > > That could be it. But everyone in this thread (well, ok, except for me) > seems to think that Delaying Tactics is as common as dirt, and so every > vote ever called has a 50% chance of getting DTed. But in my experience, > I just haven't seen this. Once and a while, I run into a deck with a lot > of them. Once and a while, I run into a deck with one or two. Most of > the time, I don't see them at all. I have and it is when the 4 other players are packing Delaying Tactics that your inner polititan must shine. > > It can't be broken if stupid players use it and don't win. :P > > I kept hoping I wasn't stupid. But sadly, not so much, so as much as > Voter Cap is incredibly good, it just couldn't save me from my own > stupidity. > > Well, that seems a little crazy that the Reverend Redneck storyline > > didn't scream DELAYING TACTICS!, since a vote gets you a free assault > > rifle and whatnot. > > Again, I know. I'd have figured that DT would be all over the place in > the storyline. But in two pretty big storyline tournaments, I didn't see > one. There might have been one in there somewhere that I didn't see get > played, but it wasn't like there were 6 in every deck or anything. 2 in every deck would be what I expected. > Don't make me do it again, because I will. Okay I'm easy. How do you > > separate declaring a vote, from going unblocked, from voting, from > > succeeding with voting, from playing a card that is dependant upon > > suceeding with voting? (because voter captivation is the last card in > > that chain) > > You simply *have* to let go of "but voting is hard" at some point in the > analysis of cards. We all know voting is hard (although, again, not so > hard that vote decks don't regularly win tournaments. And a good > percentage of them, apparently). And the "but voting is hard" is > inherent in the vote cards that exist (again, you aren't going to see a > disciplinless, free action that makes your prey lose 4 pool that *isn't* > a political action, now are you? No, 'cause voting is hard.) As > otherwise, there is simply no way to ever come to any sort of viable > conclusion about the *effect* of a vote card. If every vote card is > judged by "But it is so hard to make work! It'll get blocked! Or DTed! > Or voted down! Every time!", then *no* vote card will ever look good > enough ("Parity Shift? That card sucks! It might get blocked! PTO? > Trash! Someone might DT it!") The whole point of this discussion is whether a cost on a political card is a "REAL" cost due to the existance of Voter Captivation. I say it is, and you say it isn't. I have said why (i.e. costs are costs), and you have expounded with hyperbolic over the top cards with costs that are so out of line with anything remotely considered reasonable. Yet we are reduced to you arguing that Voter Captivation is potentially broken in the existing environment that it stifles creativity, which is the point of this thread. > > I can postulate gaining 8 blood from a Taste of Vitae as well, does > > that make Taste broken? > > No. 'Cause killing someone and tasting their 8 blood is really hard to > win with. Con Agging someone for 4 pool and gaining 6 blood and 2 pool > at the same time *isn't* hard to win with. And no one is saying that > Voter Cap is broken. Just likely too good. Bah! Either it requires alteration and is "broken" or it does not. > > Again, with the mythical cards that are so over the power curve to be > > absurd on the face of it. What gives? > > It is a over the top example in hopes that you'll see what I'm talking > about, but apparently not. Everything that you are saying about vote > cards as an example of what is not so good about Voter Cap is as true > for the worst vote card (Regaining the upper Hand?) as it is of the best > vote card (Parity Shift?) According the the logic of "but voting is > hard", there is no valid way to say that Parity Shift is good while > Regaining the Upper Hand is bad. 'Cause voting is hard. So no vote will > ever get called or passed. So that Parity shift is good and Regaining > the Upper Hand is bad is irrelevant. 'Cause in the world of "but voting > is hard", neither of them will ever be successfully called anyway. You want to focus on how "voting is hard" rather than Voter Captivation is a dead card that you will never get to play if you don't pass these 3 hurdles. 3 hurdles each which require at least one card to get past in almost any environment. Generally, It is the tail end of a 4 card combo in a hand of 7 cards. Don't have one of those cards, oops then you don't get your Voter Captivation. Sorry. Vote Decks vote. Vote decks require Titles. Titles go on big vampires. Voter Captivation is part of that at an integral level. It fundamentally creates the viability of the strategy. This isn't some bizarre "but it gives worms to ex-girlfriends" theory. This is what it is. > > I don't see it around here, because titled vampires are common and > > people hate votes on the face of them. Combat and Intercept is > > popular as well. > > You don't see vote decks work? Ever? I don't know what to tell you. 6 of > the 20 most recent TWDs are heavily vote related. So apparently, they > can win. Great, is that your arguement that Voter Captivation is potentially broken? > > ....or are you just too clever for me? > > Apparently, I'm too clever for you. Your feelings are too clever for my feelings. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 9, 7:50 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I don't know what to tell you. I regularly specifically don't play > cards in combat that cost blood, like PtL and Decapitate, specifically > because it costs a blood, and Taste isn't enough to counteract that > cost. I'd never in a million years consider *not* playing a vote that > costs a blood, simply because of Voter Cap. Heck, due to voter cap, I > regularly play Awe, which has a relatively steep blood cost, simply > because it's cost is not really an issue (due to Voter Cap). But that > is me. Just guessing, cause I'm not you, but... if Undead Strength didn't exist, I guess you might pay the blood for Pushing the Limits.

In article <1171112250....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > I have and it is when the 4 other players are packing Delaying Tactics > that your inner polititan must shine. That seems likely. And maybe if I lived in the same place you do, I'd feel differently about this. But I've been playing this game for a long time and in a lot of places. And I'm still yet to run into any significant number of Delaying Tactics. Heck--for a while I was playing a pretty good deck (weenie Protean bleed--the Proteolicious archetype) that had 6 DT in it. And most of the time, I discarded them. Until I took them all out. And the deck did even better. > 2 in every deck would be what I expected. Sure. Me too. And yet I don't put 2 in every deck (do you?). And I rarely run into people who put 2 in every deck. I don't know what to tell you. > The whole point of this discussion is whether a cost on a political > card is a "REAL" cost due to the existance of Voter Captivation. Yep. Well, that, and whether or not Voter Cap is too powerful in and of itself. > I say it is, and you say it isn't. I have said why (i.e. costs are > costs), and you have expounded with hyperbolic over the top cards with > costs that are so out of line with anything remotely considered > reasonable. Uh, yeah. That's all I've been doing. The hyperbolic, over the top cards were simply in response to your assertion that "Voter cap is fine, 'cause voting is hard". Which is dubious theory, at best. > Yet we are reduced to you arguing that Voter Captivation > is potentially broken in the existing environment that it stifles > creativity, which is the point of this thread. I don't understand this sentence. > Bah! Either it requires alteration and is "broken" or it does not. I disagree. Taste, as originally printed, wasn't "broken". It was a bit too powerful. As was 2nd Tradition. And Drawing out the Beast. And 5th Tradition. And Waether Control. None of these cards were so good as to make the game unplayable. They were just too powerful. And so they got downpowered. Which made the game work better. > You want to focus on how "voting is hard" rather than Voter > Captivation is a dead card that you will never get to play if you > don't pass these 3 hurdles. But apparently you seem to want to focus on "voting is hard", and keep bringing up how Voter Cap is something that will never get played unless you can not get blocked or pass your votes. Which strikes me, as I have pointed out, as mostly irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, yeah, on a base level, "voting is hard" is inherent to *all* vote related cards. But past that, it ceases to be an issue. > Great, is that your arguement that Voter Captivation is potentially > broken? No, it is an illustration that, even though voting is hard, vote decks still seem to manage to do pretty well. Even though every vote you ever call gets blocked, voted down, Delaying Tacticed, or DIed (which is what you seem to be using to justify the power of Voter Cap). And yet somehow, vote decks still seem to do pretty well. Which I find funny. > Your feelings are too clever for my feelings. Indeed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 6, 12:12 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Uh, I don't understand this scentence. Please. Provide examples of the > last cards that were changed. Umm, a couple cards got banned from > competetive play recently (Succubus Club and Dramatic Upheaval, which > was a totally good move for competetive play). Ooh! I know--Anarch > Revolt! I think that was the last card that got changed. 3 years ago? > And that was also completely better for the game. I was kinda bummed when I found out Visit from the Capuchin had been changed in such a way that you couldn't get around the hand size limitation of events with it. The way I see it, there are two broadly playable events: Unmasking and Dragonbound. Unmasking has always been trivial to play, allies often lean towards hordes o' nerds styles of play, and hook the Imbued right up. Dragonbound is a pure bitch, especially for card-intensive combat decks.... decks which, competitively speaking, are on the kinda sucky end of the spectrum. Fame is the staple pool damage card, but it's unique and has several other problems that anybody who runs rush knows all about. Dragonbound was tool number two. Yes, it can still be played and I still play with it, but I just don't see why VftC needed to be yet another card that doesn't do what it says it does, and one that weakens the already weakest leg of the triangle.

In article <1171111257.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > A REASONABLE percentage and yet you still will post here that Voter > Captivation is potentially broken. Me noting that 6 out of 20 TWDs are vote decks has nothing at all to do with whether or not Voter Captivation is too powerful. Just that voting as a strategy seems to be more effective than many folks involved in this discussion seem to try and make it. "Voting is hard!" Even with everyone having 6 DT in every deck. And DI being uncommon and everyone playing 4 in every deck. And competent intercept players blocking you and choking you on your Awes and Voter Caps. Even with all of this, vote decks, as a strategy? They seem to be doing just fine. Apparently, voting isn't that hard. > ....and yet again, you are posting here that Voter Cap is potentially > broken. I'm saying that Voter Cap is potentially overpowered, yes. But that isn't what the observation on the TWDA is about. Even remotely. Just that apparently voting is less hard than many folks seem to want to make it look like it is. > ....and even with a REASONABLE amount of victories, you will post here > that it is potentially broken. And again, the TWDA observation is simply illustration that voting isn't that hard. > I never said any of the the above. Well, you have said that Voter Cap is only playable if you don't get blocked. Or DTed. Or out voted. Or DIed. Which boils down to "voting is hard". And apparently, it isn't that hard. > I said that to actually play Voter > Captivation so that it isn't a dead card in your hand then you must > manage your hand around the fact that for all the reasons above that > the card would be rendered unplayable. That is true of all vote related cards. As my OTT examples about this seem wasted on you, I'll not give you another one. But I'll mention PTO. PTO is, many folks will argue, a totally overpowered card. It too is a dead card if you can't get past the "voting is hard" hurdles. And yet many people still argue that it is overpowered. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <OxRs2w8D...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > What you're trying to say is "Just because something uses politics > doesn't mean it can't be broken." > > Well, duh. > > None of the people participating in the discussion are five years old > and unable to cope with this truly radical concept. And yet Norm keeps ignoring it... > That's just crap. > > The logic of "voting is hard" is just that - voting is hard. It is > simply not as easy as bleed. Thus, wild comparisons of "Hey, this card > would be totally broken if we gave it to bleed" are, perhaps, > interesting but ultimately don't mean a whole lot. Nor does creating a > broken vote card. > > They show that politics can be broken, not that Voter Captivation is > broken. Which is fine. I'm not saying that Voter Cap is broken 'cause politics aren't hard (heck--I'm not even saying Voter Cap is broken. Just possibly too powerful than it should be). But Norm seems to be saying that Voter Cap isn't broken cause voting *is* hard. > You cannot evaluate Voter Captivation in isolation, saying "Well, that > applies to all votes." That's pretty much the entire point. It applies > to all votes. Voter Captivation is inextricably linked with votes. You > cannot separate Voter Captivation from the need to be successful at > politics. I'm not separating Voter Captivation from the need to be successful at politics. For Voter Cap to do anything, you need to call and pass votes. Assuming you are calling and passing votes is where this discussion lies. > This isn't "Oh woe is politics, it can't do anything." It's > acknowledging that politics isn't the same as other strategies, and has > a number of weaknesses compared to other strategies - and so has been > granted various bonuses compared to other strategies. Correct (see my examples about how Con Ag is fine as a card that can be played by a 1 cap vampire with no disciplines and make your prey lose 4 pool at +1 stealth, where a regular action card that did that same thing would be absurd) It has various bonuses compared to other strategies, as it has weaknesses compared to other strategies. Voter Cap is just, likely, too good of a bonus. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171119488.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was kinda bummed when I found out Visit from the Capuchin had been > changed in such a way that you couldn't get around the hand size > limitation of events with it. Fair enough. I forgot about that one. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 10, 9:03 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171111257.202188.276...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > A REASONABLE percentage and yet you still will post here that Voter > > Captivation is potentially broken. > > Me noting that 6 out of 20 TWDs are vote decks has nothing at all to do > with whether or not Voter Captivation is too powerful. Just that voting > as a strategy seems to be more effective than many folks involved in > this discussion seem to try and make it. Possibly because, unlike yourself, there is alot of anti-vote that we see all the time. Again, this is because there is a recognition that voting is powerful, and sticking your head in the sand, which is apparently the defense where you play, doesn't work. > "Voting is hard!" Even with everyone having 6 DT in every deck. And DI > being uncommon and everyone playing 4 in every deck. Again, your use of hyperbole is creating the disconnect. I never said this. But since your players haven't clued into it. Yes, when a properly prepared hostile players sit at a table, voting is not only hard but damn near impossible. When I mean properly prepared, that does not include the "stick your head in the sand" defense. No wonder you think that voting is the next incarnation of Return to Innocence. Your defense against a voting predator is "drop pants, and bend over" >And competent > intercept players blocking you and choking you on your Awes and Voter > Caps. Even with all of this, vote decks, as a strategy? They seem to be > doing just fine. Good, they should be doing fine as a strategy. > Well, you have said that Voter Cap is only playable if you don't get > blocked. Or DTed. Or out voted. Or DIed. Which boils down to "voting is > hard". No it doesn't. The same way that "Going to Work" isn't that hard but involves getting out of bed, getting dressed, taking some form of transportation, and going to your work station (whether that is the pilot seat of a Boeing 747 or the fry hopper at Wendy's) is a process. You don't succeed at it until you do all the steps. So successfully showing up at work isn't so great if you forget the "getting dressed" step. The same with voting. > > I said that to actually play Voter > > Captivation so that it isn't a dead card in your hand then you must > > manage your hand around the fact that for all the reasons above that > > the card would be rendered unplayable. > > That is true of all vote related cards. As my OTT examples about this > seem wasted on you, I'll not give you another one. But I'll mention PTO. > PTO is, many folks will argue, a totally overpowered card. It too is a > dead card if you can't get past the "voting is hard" hurdles. And yet > many people still argue that it is overpowered. Actually, only cryptic rider is dependent on a successful referendum to be able to be played from your hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > The whole point of this discussion is whether a cost on a political > > card is a "REAL" cost due to the existance of Voter Captivation. I postulate that it is and yet I have only seen you put up one example which I address with no response from you. > Yep. Well, that, and whether or not Voter Cap is too powerful in and of > itself. Right. > > I say it is, and you say it isn't. I have said why (i.e. costs are > > costs), and you have expounded with hyperbolic over the top cards with > > costs that are so out of line with anything remotely considered > > reasonable. > > Uh, yeah. That's all I've been doing. The hyperbolic, over the top cards > were simply in response to your assertion that "Voter cap is fine, > 'cause voting is hard". Which is dubious theory, at best. More like "voting is a process" and guaranteed successful voting is a 4 card process (Political Action Card, Stealth, Vote Push, and a Voter Captivation) that can still be hamstrung by a variety of single card plays. So if that is "hard" to you then yes, I would prefer to call it "high risk". The only time that "high risk" is attractive is when there is a potential "high reward" of a similar magnitude to the risk. Otherwise, people go to the lowest common denominator and set the cruise control (i.e. Stealth Bleed) > > Yet we are reduced to you arguing that Voter Captivation > > is potentially broken in the existing environment that it stifles > > creativity, which is the point of this thread. > > I don't understand this sentence. We are arguing that that Voter Captivation is so potentially broken in the existing environment that it stifles creativity. > > Bah! Either it requires alteration and is "broken" or it does not. > > I disagree. Taste, as originally printed, wasn't "broken". Broken,, as originally printed, I play 3 of them after my initial strike for 2 to gain 6 blood to power the remainer of my combat starting with additional strikes in this round. >And Drawing out the Beast. Broken, , as originally printed, Superior Dawn Operation and Superior Drawing out the Beast is a guarateed torpored blocker even if you play Form of Mist. >And 5th > Tradition. Broken, , as originally printed, You could easily gain 9 pool per turn using 1 master card and 1 minion card. And Waether Control. Broken, I play with a deck of 90 of them with weenies. We both end up in torpor every combat, but I win because I am playing weenies., as originally printed, >None of these cards were so good as to > make the game unplayable. They were just too powerful. And so they got > downpowered. Which made the game work better. Right, they were abusive open ended effects which does not jibe with a balanced system. > > You want to focus on how "voting is hard" rather than Voter > > Captivation is a dead card that you will never get to play if you > > don't pass these 3 hurdles. > > But apparently you seem to want to focus on "voting is hard", and keep > bringing up how Voter Cap is something that will never get played unless > you can not get blocked or pass your votes. And yet it is true. >Which strikes me, as I have > pointed out, as mostly irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, yeah, on a > base level, "voting is hard" is inherent to *all* vote related cards. > But past that, it ceases to be an issue. It boils down to risk versus reward. If you don't understand that busting your ass for the brass ring (whatever that may be) is harder yet more rewarding than sitting on your ass collecting welfare then I don't think that we can have an intelligible discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171126230.5...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > More like "voting is a process" and guaranteed successful voting is a > 4 card process (Political Action Card, Stealth, Vote Push, and a Voter > Captivation) that can still be hamstrung by a variety of single card > plays. So if that is "hard" to you then yes, I would prefer to call > it "high risk". The only time that "high risk" is attractive is when > there is a potential "high reward" of a similar magnitude to the > risk. Otherwise, people go to the lowest common denominator and set > the cruise control (i.e. Stealth Bleed) That sounds like a fair assessment. > We are arguing that that Voter Captivation > is so potentially broken in the existing environment that it stifles > creativity. More or less. Except I'm sticking with "overpowered" instead of "broken". > Broken,, as originally printed, I play 3 of them after my initial > strike for 2 to gain 6 blood to power the remainer of my combat > starting with additional strikes in this round. > > >And Drawing out the Beast. > > Broken, , as originally printed, Superior Dawn Operation and Superior > Drawing out the Beast is a guarateed torpored blocker even if you play > Form of Mist. > > >And 5th > > Tradition. > > Broken, , as originally printed, You could easily gain 9 pool per turn > using 1 master card and 1 minion card. > > And Waether Control. > > Broken, I play with a deck of 90 of them with weenies. We both end up > in torpor every combat, but I win because I am playing weenies., as > originally printed, And one could make the same claim about Voter Cap. Broken, as it allows an unrestricted amount of blood gain while also giving you pool without taking a specific action to do so. I'm unclear why your assessment of, say, 5th Tradition is "broken" while Voter Cap (which does more or less the same thing, but trades the specific action to 5th for the difficulties of voting) is fine. > Right, they were abusive open ended effects which does not jibe with a > balanced system. And Voter Cap is also arguably an abusive open ended effect that does not jibe with a balanced system. It is open ended, in that the only limit to the amount of blood you gain is the size of your vampire. And you can play multiples per turn. All while forwarding your optimal goal of ousting your prey. > And yet it is true. It is true. And it is true of any vote related card. Yet it is certainly possible for a vote related card to be overpowered--would you agree that on some level, it is possible for a vote related card to be overpowered? > It boils down to risk versus reward. If you don't understand that > busting your ass for the brass ring (whatever that may be) is harder > yet more rewarding than sitting on your ass collecting welfare then I > don't think that we can have an intelligible discussion. No, I understand the concept of risk versus reward. I just think the reward of the current Voter Cap might be too big for the risk involved. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171125186.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > Possibly because, unlike yourself, there is alot of anti-vote that we > see all the time. Again, this is because there is a recognition that > voting is powerful, and sticking your head in the sand, which is > apparently the defense where you play, doesn't work. Where are you getting "sticking my head in the sand"? Just 'cause you don't agree with me there is no reason to get testy. Vote decks don't run rampant around these parts. They do ok, like everything else. It just has nothing to do with Delaying Tactics, which is what we were talking about. I see plenty of intercept and table votes all the time. Both locally and elsewhere. Which keeps voting from going crazy. But that doesn't mean that vote decks get shut down every game. They work pretty well. > Again, your use of hyperbole is creating the disconnect. I never said > this. Other folks did (to paraphrase someone "Come play around here, and you'll see tons of DT...") > But since your players haven't clued into it. Yes, when a > properly prepared hostile players sit at a table, voting is not only > hard but damn near impossible. And yet vote decks still win fairly regularly. If voting was as hard, if not as damn near impossible, as you and others seem to think, folks wouldn't play vote decks, and they wouldn't win tournaments with them. I think evidence points to the idea that people do play vote decks and vote decks regularly win. > No wonder you think that voting is the next incarnation of Return to > Innocence. Your defense against a voting predator is "drop pants, and > bend over" Umm, if you want to believe this to prop up your argument, go nuts. All I said was that I don't see heavy use of Delaying Tactics. Somehow you turned this into "drop pants, bend over". If that makes you happy. > Good, they should be doing fine as a strategy. And they are. So all this talk of "but it is hard to call votes! They get blocked and Delayed and DIed! Awe is useless! Voter Cap just jams your hand!" doesn't really hold up to the mirror of reality. Which is fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: > And one could make the same claim about Voter Cap. Broken, as it allows > an unrestricted amount of blood gain while also giving you pool without > taking a specific action to do so. I'm unclear why your assessment of, > say, 5th Tradition is "broken" while Voter Cap (which does more or less > the same thing, but trades the specific action to 5th for the > difficulties of voting) is fine. I believe 5th Tradition is an example of a card that was nerfed a little too much. It was at one time a powerful staple of many prince/justicar decks. Now it's rarely seen. Anyway, the answer to your question is plain: 5th Tradition does something without depending on other cards being played or negotiating a vote to highly successful referendum. Voter Captivation depends on many other factors. To use a personal anecdote, I've lately been playing this silly Sabbat Inquisitor (burn your own crypt if they have tha, which they do) Possession deck. A couple times I've gotten out Orland, Sha-Ennu and several other titled vampires, once fielding an impressive 24 static table votes. What good is my opponent's Voter Captivation against that? 5th Tradition would still work fine. > No, I understand the concept of risk versus reward. I just think the > reward of the current Voter Cap might be too big for the risk involved. Given the risk of being blocked or voted down, I agree. But you also have to consider the risk of trying to influence up a fatty to Tap/Cap while your predator litters the table with dom weenies to kill you. Playing large vampires is inherently risky. Playing weenies is not. Fix that imbalance and then let's talk about Voter Captivation. Right now it's one of the few rewards that I can see for taking the risk of playing with large vampires. Matt Morgan

> And one could make the same claim about Voter Cap. Broken, as it allows > an unrestricted amount of blood gain while also giving you pool without > taking a specific action to do so. I'm unclear why your assessment of, > say, 5th Tradition is "broken" while Voter Cap (which does more or less > the same thing, but trades the specific action to 5th for the > difficulties of voting) is fine. [...] > And Voter Cap is also arguably an abusive open ended effect that does > not jibe with a balanced system. It is open ended, in that the only > limit to the amount of blood you gain is the size of your vampire. And > you can play multiples per turn. All while forwarding your optimal goal > of ousting your prey. In the absence of Awe, this would be utter nonsense. Even given the existence of Awe it's inaccurate. The blood gain from Voter Cap is limited by the capacity of the vampire and by the number of votes you can pass areferrendum by. 5th Trad is succeptible only to blocks or effects that cancel an action or make it automatically fail, it requires one action and one card plus maybe a stealth modifier and in the extreme case another stealth or 'block fails' modifier; Voter Cap is succeptible to blocks, action cancelation, action fails, referrendum cancelation, referrendum fails automatically, referrendum fails because other people vote against or cancel your votes, it requires a bare minimum of two cards but realistically more like four or five. I know you know this, and I know it's been said repeatedly in this thread, so why do you keep making the inapt analogies? Does Voter Captivation give an excessive reward for the effort involved, and is it so excessive that it's worth changing or banning, that's the point. You have said explicitly that you believe so, and the 'voting is hard' people are saying that they believe not in a way that's clear enough that I don't see why you insist on reading it as meaning that they think *no* reward would be too big for a successful politician. I personally think the VC reward is slightly excessive (and that there are many, many other cards with slightly excessive rewards), and that the excess does not merit the extreme interventions proposed. It's one of the big cards in the game, and one of very few associated with voting. If it's keeping voting from getting new big cards, well, that's not a disaster. There's no reason at all it should keep voting from getting new interesting, useable cards. Referrendums fail a lot around here. Two or more political decks at the table is not uncommon. I personally do put one or two Delaying Tactics and a Poison Pill in just about every deck that doesn't have some other defense against politics. I see DT in other people's decks occasionally too, and there's a fair amount of Scalpel Tongue around.

In article <2007021012...@eris.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > I believe 5th Tradition is an example of a card that was nerfed a little > too much. It was at one time a powerful staple of many prince/justicar > decks. Now it's rarely seen. This is true--it was probably cut down more than necessary. I see it used once and a while, and use it once and a while, but not often. And usually just use Voter Cap instead :-) > Anyway, the answer to your question is plain: 5th Tradition does something > without depending on other cards being played or negotiating a vote to > highly successful referendum. Voter Captivation depends on many other > factors. To use a personal anecdote, I've lately been playing this silly > Sabbat Inquisitor (burn your own crypt if they have tha, which they do) > Possession deck. A couple times I've gotten out Orland, Sha-Ennu and > several other titled vampires, once fielding an impressive 24 static table > votes. What good is my opponent's Voter Captivation against that? 5th > Tradition would still work fine. Heh. That sounds kind of extreme. But yeah, in that instance, Voter Cap is useless and 5th becomes pure gold. Or something like that. > Given the risk of being blocked or voted down, I agree. But you also have > to consider the risk of trying to influence up a fatty to Tap/Cap while > your predator litters the table with dom weenies to kill you. Playing > large vampires is inherently risky. Playing weenies is not. Fix that > imbalance and then let's talk about Voter Captivation. Right now it's one > of the few rewards that I can see for taking the risk of playing with > large vampires. Both of those points are totally reasonable, but falls back on (well, not the weenie point, which is a very, very strong, yet different, point) yeah, Voter Cap is one of the main enabling factors for playing big vampires. And if it got nerfed, it would be less of an enabling factor for big vampires. But then, maybe new cards that *are* enabling factors for large vampires could be implemented that have a high payoff for a high risk, and make playing huge vampires worthwhile. Which personally, I find intriguing. In this whole crazy discussion, I'm sort of lost over how much of this argument is: A) "Voter Cap isn't too strong." (i.e. the card is fine) and B) "We hate change!" (i.e. we don't want the card changed for all the myriad of practical reasons, including hating card rewording) And I think a great deal of it is an intermingling of both. For my money, really, I'm fine one way or the other. I'm not really het up about this in the way I was about, like, Succubus Club or Anarch Revolt (both of which I strongly felt should have been fixed/banned/whatever). In Voter Caps case, I see totally where LSJ is coming from, in the "it is probably too powerful" sense and also the "it hamstrings our ability to make new cards" sense. And I can certainly see how, if it got nerfed, possibilities would open up for exciting new cards that picked up the slack that was left. But, ya know, that's me :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171135166....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, "Malone" <kffo...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Does Voter Captivation give an excessive reward for the effort > involved, and is it so excessive that it's worth changing or banning, > that's the point. Indeed. > You have said explicitly that you believe so, and > the 'voting is hard' people are saying that they believe not in a way > that's clear enough that I don't see why you insist on reading it as > meaning that they think *no* reward would be too big for a successful > politician. I don't read it that way. I'm just trying to pose the idea that it is possible for there to be a reward that is too big for a successful politician, and that given that this is a possibility, Voter Cap might be too big of a reward. I also think that PTO is too big of a reward for a successful politician (i.e. I think PTO is too powerful), even with all the stumbles and hardships of running a political deck. I don't want to turn this into a PTO debate, even remotely. Just pointing out that even though voting is hard, it is possible for a vote card to be too powerful. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 10, 11:46 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171126230.577084.142...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > More like "voting is a process" and guaranteed successful voting is a > > 4 card process (Political Action Card, Stealth, Vote Push, and a Voter > > Captivation) that can still be hamstrung by a variety of single card > > plays. So if that is "hard" to you then yes, I would prefer to call > > it "high risk". The only time that "high risk" is attractive is when > > there is a potential "high reward" of a similar magnitude to the > > risk. Otherwise, people go to the lowest common denominator and set > > the cruise control (i.e. Stealth Bleed) > > That sounds like a fair assessment. > > > We are arguing that that Voter Captivation > > is so potentially broken in the existing environment that it stifles > > creativity. > > More or less. Except I'm sticking with "overpowered" instead of "broken". I will agree that is a fair assessment, but only so far as to say that it in no way needs to be hamstrung to institute "creativity". > > Broken,, as originally printed, I play 3 of them after my initial > > strike for 2 to gain 6 blood to power the remainer of my combat > > starting with additional strikes in this round. > > > >And Drawing out the Beast. > > > Broken, , as originally printed, Superior Dawn Operation and Superior > > Drawing out the Beast is a guarateed torpored blocker even if you play > > Form of Mist. > > > >And 5th > > > Tradition. > > > Broken, , as originally printed, You could easily gain 9 pool per turn > > using 1 master card and 1 minion card. > > > And Waether Control. > > > Broken, I play with a deck of 90 of them with weenies. We both end up > > in torpor every combat, but I win because I am playing weenies., as > > originally printed, > > And one could make the same claim about Voter Cap. Broken, as it allows > an unrestricted amount of blood gain while also giving you pool without > taking a specific action to do so. I'm unclear why your assessment of, > say, 5th Tradition is "broken" while Voter Cap (which does more or less > the same thing, but trades the specific action to 5th for the > difficulties of voting) is fine. Except for the fact that it is a restricted amount of blood simply based on card text "number of votes that it passed by" which can be restricted very simply just by the presence of votes on the table. So it isn't unrestricted at all. When you play Voter Captivation there is no guarantee that you will refill your vampire as completely as 5th tradition did originally. > > Right, they were abusive open ended effects which does not jibe with a > > balanced system. > > And Voter Cap is also arguably an abusive open ended effect that does > not jibe with a balanced system. It is open ended, in that the only > limit to the amount of blood you gain is the size of your vampire. And > you can play multiples per turn. All while forwarding your optimal goal > of ousting your prey. But it simply isn't open ended. It is restricted "by the number of votes" it passed by. > > And yet it is true. > > It is true. And it is true of any vote related card. Yet it is certainly > possible for a vote related card to be overpowered--would you agree that > on some level, it is possible for a vote related card to be overpowered? Anything is possible, but that doesn't mean I agree with your assessement. > > It boils down to risk versus reward. If you don't understand that > > busting your ass for the brass ring (whatever that may be) is harder > > yet more rewarding than sitting on your ass collecting welfare then I > > don't think that we can have an intelligible discussion. > > No, I understand the concept of risk versus reward. I just think the > reward of the current Voter Cap might be too big for the risk involved. > That would be where we would have to agree to disagree. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171149783....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > That would be where we would have to agree to disagree. See--we coulda done this *days* ago :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1171099523....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, andrea....@infinito.it writes: >James, >I'm sorry Yes, quoting a whole post and failing to use your delete key is something to apologise for. :-( >but while i can see your point that comparison of votes with >other game techs is not valid, i still cannot see any point in your >mail in favor of voter captivation. That would be because the post was disputing Peter's points, which seem to largely be: 1) But it would be so broken if we gave it to bleed. which is an invalid point, because vote isn't bleed. 2) Here's some made up vote card that's broken. Now *that* proves that VC is broken, doesn't it? which is similarly wrong. Since I wasn't making a pro-VC post, but rather disputing Peter's methods, it's not surprising that something that wasn't in the post, erm, wasn't in the post. >I fully agree with you on politics ...(requote) >> This isn't "Oh woe is politics, it can't do anything." It's >> acknowledging that politics isn't the same as other strategies, and has >> a number of weaknesses compared to other strategies - and so has been >> granted various bonuses compared to other strategies. > >but the bonuses should be limited to political actions. some >referendums (referenda?) are stronger in result than what you can have >outside politics, fine. The bonuses from Voter Captivation are only available on political actions. Note also that many other strategies have cards that are not part of the strategy itself but which give you a bonus when utilizing the strategy well. For example, if vampires calling votes and then gaining blood when they pass is off-limits, ban Guru - and potentially Perfectionist. Note that Perfectionist applies to many, many strategies in the game. Similarly, combat should only benefit from the combat, so let's remove Fame, Tension in the Ranks, Provisions of the Silsila, Soul Stealing, Predator's Transformation... Bleed must have Capitalist banned, and Alamut is clearly right out. >Why do i have to add to this a card that modifies the referendum in >such a good way that i would never think to play a political deck >without? Several problems with this: 1) There are numerous political decks that are played without Voter Captivation. Most of them don't involve Presence. For example, Auspex-based cancellation, found with the !Ventrue, can do really very well. Nosferatu Royalty can do well without going near Presence - though one or two do have Presence if you choose to go that way, but one of those is Harrod, which is awkward, as the Inner Circle title is a pain (for once!) because you can't Parity Shift or Second Tradition. Big Gangrel decks can do very well using (for example) Ingrid and Stanislava, with no Voter Captivation or Awe on hand. A number of less subtle combat decks can vote by rushing troublesome vampires (e.g. burning Arika) and calling the more controversial votes afterwards. The Lasombra have access to Power Structure, and can vote pretty well with that. The EuroBrujah have very little access to Presence (CEL/POT/DOM on Donal and Constanza, CEL/pot on Volker), and can still put together a reasonable voting package through pool gain and titles. 2) There are numerous cards that are found in similar fashions. So many decks involving combat play Taste of Vitae, for example. Why do I need to add this card that modifies the combat in such a good way? It's hard to imagine playing a deck with a reasonable number of Dominate vampires that *doesn't* play Deflection. 2a) Perhaps the best example of a card that almost must be played when it is available is Freak Drive. If you're playing big vampires with Fortitude, you almost have to include Freak Drive. You get the flexibility of Forced March instead these days, but Freak Drive is a stunning, stunning card. It's also the case that when people evaluate new vampires, any big vampire without reliable access to untap tech (particularly Freak Drive) get a number of negative remarks, unless there's something specific about them that negates that. The huge significance of cards like that makes Voter Captivation pale, IMO. >I personally don't like cards that SHOULD go in every deck of a type >and VC is THE card in presence vote decks (that is, by strong majority >i imagine, vote decks) Big vampire decks have long had the problem of almost needing to use Minion Tap. Aside from ally heavy decks (specifically, the Imbued) practically every strong deck in the game uses either Minion Tap or Blood Doll, with occasional side helpings of Tribute to the Master (though its indiscriminate nature means it isn't always well liked). Deflection goes into vast, vast numbers of Dominate decks. Heart of Nizchetus looks like it may end up being found in vast numbers of decks. Auspex decks not using the Bowl of Convergence usually should think again. Vast numbers of decks use one of the (now) three available Wake cards. This isn't a new thing. >As an example I think that having votercap as a political action would >be seen as a perfectly viable PA, fits in some decks, not in others, >would not be played in all presence political deck but is useful for >bloat in a non vote heavy environment. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, it's probably the case that Voter Captivation was written in an overly broad fashion. It would be, perhaps, nice if Voter Captivation's effect required something else in addition, so that alternative Voter Cap-like effects could be created for other situations. But we've had cards like this before, where the majority (perhaps the overwhelming majority) of decks capable of playing the card choose to play the card, and we still have such cards in the game without touching them. There is a difference between a card being appropriate for many kinds of deck and a card being overly powerful. The former creates design problems (such as, how to design new cards, or how to design "clones" that are worth playing for other disciplines/sects/traits, how to diversify deck designs), but design problems are not the same as power problems. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-2F9C77.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >I disagree. Taste, as originally printed, wasn't "broken". It was a bit >too powerful. As was 2nd Tradition. And Drawing out the Beast. And 5th >Tradition. And Waether Control. Second Tradition's text change resolved a common problem with it, htat of being unable to use it in the manner that was apparently intended for it - blocking a zero stealth action. Drawing Out The Beast and Weather Control could both shut down any vampire, by virtue of being stackable and, in the case of DotB, taking effect at the end of the round (so S:CE couldn't save you). If being able to shut down every vampire in the game pretty much regardless of what they do doesn't count as getting pretty close to broken, I'm honestly not sure what game you're playing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 11, 8:33 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Second Tradition's text change resolved a common problem with it, htat > of being unable to use it in the manner that was apparently intended for > it - blocking a zero stealth action. It was also given a blood cost for the untap, which wasn't strictly necessary (i.e. it didn't fix any particularly degenerate aspect of the card--it just made it less good). > Drawing Out The Beast and Weather > Control could both shut down any vampire, by virtue of being stackable > and, in the case of DotB, taking effect at the end of the round (so S:CE > couldn't save you). Fair enough. DotB and WC probably were "broken" in the sense that they *needed* fixing. But Second Traditon? And even 5th Tradition was arguably just "really really good" rather than "broken". And Banishment wasn't "broken" when you could banish anyone--just really, really good. And did Delaying Tactics *need* to cost a blood? Was the game being shut down by free Delaying Tactics? Unlikely--it was just likely too powerful for a disciplineless card and could use a nerfing. -Peter

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2007020914...@eris.io.com... > On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 ben...@gmail.com wrote: > > We're talking about fixing Voter Captivation not because it's regarded as > broken, but because it's regarded as overpowered. That is to say that the > card isn't necessarily causing problems. It's simply stronger than it > should be. I can think of a lot of cards that that's true of. That > shouldn't be the measure for determining whether or not a card gets > changed. Matt, thank you. This is one of the most rational things I've read in this whole thread. With a library card base of 1708 options (today), some cards will be comparatively stronger than others. Even more so, certain combinations of cards will be even stronger. Personally, I'm fine with changes to cards (or combinations) that have been demonstrated to be broken in competitive environments (e.g., Succubus Club). But I believe that most people now agree that VC isn't "broken" - just "overpowered" compared to the baseline card population. Altering cards on that sliding scale of power seems problematic to me. > We might as well just scrap this game and start over from scratch. Even then, we would eventually reach a situationwhere comparatively strong card combinations existed, even if every individual card seemed balanced. > The thing that really bugs me about this is there's a very obvious flaw in > this game that isn't being addressed. That is that it's much better to > buy three 3 capacity vampires than it is to buy one 9 capacity vampire. > Voter Captivation is one of the few exceptions to this rule. I'd be a lot > more comfortable with the notion of "fixing" Voter Captivation if the > weenie problem were dealt with first. Ha! Well stated. Several folks have mentioned the unwieldy aspects of voting compared to any other action type, but you have distilled all that back to the heart of the matter. Thanks for the food for thought. D.

On 9 fév, 22:16, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Peter D Bakija schrieb: > > > On Feb 9, 12:32 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >> I think that stopping a vote is easy. It just requires Delaying > >> Tactics or Irregular Protocall. It wastes everything you have played > >> so far. Honestly how often do you see Delaying Tactics get played? > > > In theory, you are correct. In practice, really, I don't actually see > > Delaying Tactics get played that much. Locally or in blind > > tournaments. There are probably reasons for this, but in general, in > > my experience, most of the time a vote deck calls a vote? It passes. > > You should really come to play over here with some vote decks, you will > face a lot of DT during the day :) > > -- > johannes walch In Switzerland and in France there is a minimu of 3 delying tactic in each none vote deck... On the last tournement it became a joke because no one was playing vote and we were all discarding a minimum of 2 DT in each game.

Darby Keeney wrote: > just > "overpowered" compared to the baseline card population. Altering cards on > that sliding scale of power seems problematic to me. Note that it's not a sliding scale that Matt is referring to. "Stronger than it should be" is not a sliding metric, unlike "overpowered compared to the current baseline" or "at the top of the power curve for the current set of cards/errata", as you seem to be reading it.

[ quoted text not captured ] That statement is true in itself, but when Voter Captivation is put forward as an example of a card stronger than it should be, I can understand how people might begin to think a sliding scale was involved. It seems to me that Voter Captivation is certainly stronger than some other cards, but I don't think it's more relatively strong than a whole long list of things like Govern the Unaligned, Deflection, Telepathic Misdirection, Torn Signpost, .44 Magnum, Blur, Majesty (even at 1 blood cost), Parity Shift, Kine Resources Contested, Blood Doll, Perfectionist (WAY above the power curve for Archetypes), and so on and so forth. I mean, if you really want to alter all these cards, that's OK with me. But I (honestly, no kidding) think it would be better to do so as part of a whole new game rather than in the same VTES we've been playing for the last twelve years (and a bit). Josh very sincere

In message <1171211427.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >On Feb 11, 8:33 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Second Tradition's text change resolved a common problem with it, htat >> of being unable to use it in the manner that was apparently intended for >> it - blocking a zero stealth action. > >It was also given a blood cost for the untap, which wasn't strictly >necessary (i.e. it didn't fix any particularly degenerate aspect of >the card--it just made it less good). Actually, again, this wasn't a straight-forward nerf. The V:TES text, from the WotC card text files: Card Text: Requires ready Prince or Justicar. Only usable by a tapped vampire. Untap this vampire. This reacting vampire gets +2 intercept. The card had moved from "Usable by a tapped vampire" in Jyhad to "Only usable" in V:TES. The rewrite by LSJ makes it better again (usable by tapped and untapped), resolves the issue of zero-stealth actions for tapped vampires (which a straight-forward application of the rules denied), and gives it a minor cost for tapped vampires. So it's up AND down. Which isn't an outright nerf. >> Drawing Out The Beast and Weather >> Control could both shut down any vampire, by virtue of being stackable >> and, in the case of DotB, taking effect at the end of the round (so S:CE >> couldn't save you). > >Fair enough. DotB and WC probably were "broken" in the sense that they >*needed* fixing. But Second Traditon? I think you're forgetting what the change to Second Tradition actually was, in favour of a rose-tinted version in which LSJ only nerfed the card. He didn't. >And even 5th Tradition was >arguably just "really really good" rather than "broken". Arguably, evidence from actual play contradicted this. As others have pointed out, Fifth Tradition almost formed its own strategy - Fifth, Minion Tap, push out some more vampires with your Info Highways (or whatever). That's very different to the card under consideration, where you need to be successful in a strategy that's central to the game to use it - one of the three strategies Garfield set up. If being successful at votes is too easy (for whatever reason), then we should look at why - is it a degenerate case of a group that's only playing pro-vote, or is it more of a case (taken in the round) of the available cards being unsuitable, or is it the case that some strategies/clans being denied useful access to cards that are suitable for others? Or whatever. > And >Banishment wasn't "broken" when you could banish anyone--just really, >really good. 1 caps banishing 11 caps (as did happen) was generally considered to be beyond "really, really good." But this wasn't established just by looking at card text, but also by virtue of seeing the effect of the card in play. It is possible - though by no means certain - that this was focused on because of the strength of Legacy of Pander (which was nerfed in SW, Banishment in FN). We had similar nerfs going before that, though, with the aggravated damage rules being rolled back from the power in V:TES to something closer to the power in Jyhad (but somewhat simpler), *and* a fix for Pulled Fangs (which was still considered too powerful even with that fix to aggravated damage). > And did Delaying Tactics *need* to cost a blood? Was the >game being shut down by free Delaying Tactics? Unlikely--it was just >likely too powerful for a disciplineless card and could use a nerfing. This is perhaps the most obvious "power card" that wasn't exactly broken. But a one blood cost to it doesn't completely rewrite a whole strategy in the way that completely altering how Voter Cap would to (a lot of) Presence voters. It just makes it a slightly less no-brain defence. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 11, 2:05 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1171099523.006758.25...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > > andrea.la.ma...@infinito.it writes: > >James, > >I'm sorry > > Yes, quoting a whole post and failing to use your delete key is > something to apologise for. :-( Ok then, i'm doubly sorry ;-) Andrea

LSJ schrieb: > Those who don't wish to participate in a constructive discussion are > free not to, of course. Thank you for sharing that insight with us.

bluedevil schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I think the change was done not to nerf combat decks but to counter the massive-event decks which were disrupting the game very much by just playing most to all of the available (gehenna) events. In that regard it has worked very well (you can´t really play with a hand size of 1-2). The unfortunate side-effect was that event modules in combat decks are now kinda hard to do, but having Dragonbound is still viable I think. -- johannes walch

On Feb 5, 6:12 pm, "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Analysis: I did a quick word search on Lasombra's TWDA, with the > following results for occurrences of the following phrases: > > Blood Doll 503 > Minion Tap 230 > Govern the Unaligned 188 > Majesty 160 > Kine Resources Contested 134 > Taste of Vitae 120 > Freak Drive 118 > Voter Captivation 86 > Kindred Spirits 45 > Perfectionist 36 Hmm. I wrote a fairly detailed PERL script to parse the whole TWDA for card frequencies, and here are the top cards: 1815 blood doll 1538 wake with evening's freshness 1439 deflection 1109 govern the unaligned 1056 kine resources contested 1041 forced awakening 972 telepathic misdirection 965 majesty 754 lost in crowds 687 second tradition: domain, the 651 cloak the gathering 609 freak drive 592 immortal grapple 591 conditioning 564 taste of vitae 509 carrion crows 495 swallowed by the night 450 sudden reversal 442 faceless night 439 obedience 434 torn signpost 421 voter captivation I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, but it's close. Of course, the above numbers are from the beginning of the TWDA, dating back to 1997. I ran the numbers starting from 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. I put the top 50 in an excel doc and posted it here (link to my personal website): http://tinyurl.com/3cscuj I'm not sure what this shows exactly about the power level of voter cap, but it's definitely not the most popular card for tournament winning decks. Ira

On Feb 12, 2:26 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I think you're forgetting what the change to Second Tradition actually > was, in favour of a rose-tinted version in which LSJ only nerfed the > card. He didn't. Seems likely I was forgetting that. > Arguably, evidence from actual play contradicted this. As others have > pointed out, Fifth Tradition almost formed its own strategy - Fifth, > Minion Tap, push out some more vampires with your Info Highways (or > whatever). I'm unconvinced. I mean, I'm unconvinced that 5th was something that someone couldn't argue was a "top of the power curve, but should have been left alone" card. > 1 caps banishing 11 caps (as did happen) was generally considered to be > beyond "really, really good." But this wasn't established just by > looking at card text, but also by virtue of seeing the effect of the > card in play. Oh, I know. I was on the forfront of considering it beyond "really, really good". But I'm not for a second convinced that it being determined to be beyond "Really, really good" was the result of anything other than looking at the card, seeing what it could do, comparing it to similar cards, and saying "Huh. That is way too good". Exactly like what is being done with Voter Cap. > This is perhaps the most obvious "power card" that wasn't exactly > broken. But a one blood cost to it doesn't completely rewrite a whole > strategy in the way that completely altering how Voter Cap would to (a > lot of) Presence voters. It just makes it a slightly less no-brain > defence. And yet, even though the card wasn't particularly broken, it got fixed. And the game was better for it. Yeah, altering Voter Cap would have a significant effect on the strategy of a lot of Presence vote decks. But then, altering Immortal Grapple had a significant effect on the strategy of a lot of Potence combat decks. And yet we all survived. -Peter

On Feb 12, 7:56 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what this shows exactly about the power level of voter > cap, but it's definitely not the most popular card for tournament > winning decks. Interesting. Did the script also look for "Voter Cap" (as well as abreviated versions of other cards--"Wake", etc?) I don't know that it would have a significant impact, but it might. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6- 42DAFE.125...@news-server.stny.rr.com: > "Xzealot" wrote: >> Peter D. Bakija wrote: >>> "Voting is hard". snip >> Good, they should be doing fine as a strategy. > > And they are. So all this talk of "but it is hard to call votes! They > get blocked and Delayed and DIed! Awe is useless! Voter Cap just jams > your hand!" doesn't really hold up to the mirror of reality. Which is > fine. > From my perspective, its not that "voting is hard", its that the big-cap Pre VC/deep MT combo is risky. The number and variety of ways in which big cap Pre VC/deep MT can be interfered with is large, because there are so many steps which go into it. Normal, good decks, doing their Normal Good- Deck Thing (without special preparations) typically have the means by which to poke a hole in the big cap Pre VC/deep MT combo, which seems to be a major aspect of your issue with VC's overpowered-ness. Am I wrong? Show me where, please... Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Feb 12, 9:02 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > From my perspective, its not that "voting is hard", its that the big-cap > Pre VC/deep MT combo is risky. The number and variety of ways in which big > cap Pre VC/deep MT can be interfered with is large, because there are so > many steps which go into it. Completely true. > Normal, good decks, doing their Normal Good- > Deck Thing (without special preparations) typically have the means by which > to poke a hole in the big cap Pre VC/deep MT combo, which seems to be a > major aspect of your issue with VC's overpowered-ness. Am I wrong? Show > me where, please... Heh. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not real het up about this (i.e. I don't actually have a huge issue with VC's overpoweredness)--yeah, I'm posting a lot, but I'm not, like, the champion of this issue. Even remotely. I just, ya know, see where LSJ is coming from, and agree that it might be worthwhile to change VC. That being said, I don't really understand your question. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:1171289905....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 12, 9:02 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> From my perspective, its not that "voting is hard", its that the >> big-cap Pre VC/deep MT combo is risky. The number and variety of >> ways in which big cap Pre VC/deep MT can be interfered with is large, >> because there are so many steps which go into it. > > Completely true. > Yeh. Sorry, you already responded to this same point from Normie here; Message-ID: <pdb6-C3D757.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com> I'm just catching up from the weekend, that'll learn me to post something before slogging through the whole thread. ;-) >> Normal, good decks, doing their Normal Good- >> Deck Thing (without special preparations) typically have the means by >> which to poke a hole in the big cap Pre VC/deep MT combo, which seems >> to be a major aspect of your issue with VC's overpowered-ness. Am I >> wrong? Show me where, please... > > Heh. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not real het up about this (i.e. I > don't actually have a huge issue with VC's overpoweredness)--yeah, I'm > posting a lot, but I'm not, like, the champion of this issue. Even > remotely. I just, ya know, see where LSJ is coming from, and agree > that it might be worthwhile to change VC. > > That being said, I don't really understand your question. > Just want to make sure I'm understanding your position on VC correctly, is all. We can talk about it over a beer on Saturday... DZ AW

On Feb 10, 11:48 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171149783.118227.79...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > That would be where we would have to agree to disagree. > > See--we coulda done this *days* ago :-) > Yes, but this is so cathartic. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Small vampires are stronger than they should be. I've never heard anyone refute that statement. Can we get a fix please? If the answer is no, then please don't make changes to cards that make large vampires viable. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] What fix do you propose?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:x%1xh.6667$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards > with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of > textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due > to the option of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the > Voter Capped ones. Hmm. To briefly address the design aspect of the question, I think textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath are a very appropriate solution to that issue. Other variants, like "cannot gain more than 1 blood during this action" or "cannot play action modifiers during this action" would give interesting design options as well. Then, too, there are many possible "requires X" options for political-action design (requires a titled independent vampire; requires a Giovanni; requires a Sabbat vampire; requires a vampire of capacity above 5; etc etc), and historically those appeared to be considered as the appropriate "costs" for political action cards - there were no political actions that cost blood in Jyhad, and up through Sabbat, only Protect Thine Own had any printed cost at all. > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, > unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in > its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect > with pool gain to boot. Just as an aside, "unblockable" is a bit hyperbolic in referring to an action-modifier card. It's inherent in the nature of action modifiers that they cannot be blocked, much as it is inherent in the nature of master cards that they cannot be blocked either. > Other comparable effects: > Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool. > Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain. > Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool. > Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool. > > The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, I > think we all agree. Pretty powerful, maybe, but I have not heard of reasonable people suggesting that it's so strong that it ought to be weakened because it's making the cost of combat cards insignificant. > It also gives blood for nothing more than "what you were doing anyhow". It > is slightly more cyclable (can be played even when damage is prevented or > not done at all or whatever), but it never gives pool, and it's harder to > get the same range of gain with damage compared to vote margins, and vote > margins don't incur the same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what > your deck does" is typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for > vote decks than for combat decks). > > Thoughts? Taste of Vitae is disciplineless and Voter Captivation requires Presence - superior Presence for the pool-gain portion, which appears to be heavily on your mind, based on the comparisons you made above. That is not an insignificant cost. Kindred Spirits also gives you pool for what you were doing anyway, is even more directly tied to ousting your prey than passing votes is, and is the most cyclable of all (playable whenever you have it in hand). The Presence requirement on Voter Captivation - and the requirement for having enough capacity on the vampire playing Voter Captivation to gain a substantial benefit from it - appear to be conditions that deserve further consideration. One, an awful lot of the vote decks that get played in the first place use Presence, not just for Voter Captivation, but also because Bewitching Oration, Awe, Charming Lobby, and so on are in the same discipline. Two, those Presence vote decks don't have easy access to stealth - a major balancing factor for powerful actions and action-modifiers like Voter Captivation - unless they are the Setites, who lack powerful titles and only have titles at all on rather high-capacity vampires. Three, you can't gain very much blood from a Voter Captivation unless the vampire you play it with has a large capacity to hold all that blood. High-capacity vampires are well-known to be less efficient than low-capacity vampires in general, so it requires using otherwise-less-optimal tools to maximize one's use of Voter Captivation. Four, requiring a Discipline rather than being a Disciplineless card justifies, in many many cases, large increases in power level of the cards in question - from weakish cards like Entrenching to strong ones like Scouting Mission and Enchant Kindred; from weak cards like Tortured Confessions to strong ones like Decapitate; from weak cards like Banner of Neutrality to strong ones like Redirection. Or, to compare strength to strength, there are other strong cards that reward you for "what you're doing anyway": Social Charm and Legal Manipulations for pool while also increasing a bleed and helping oust your prey; Parity Shift for pool while also reducing your prey's pool; Kindred Spirits, as mentioned above, for pool while, again, increasing bleeds to help oust your prey (or someone else if you prefer). At this point, the hypothesis that Voter Captivation is stronger than it should be does not appear very well supported by the evidence at hand. More evidence that it is, in fact, too strong should be presented before taking action to reduce its strength. Josh no witty sig today

On Feb 12, 10:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > What fix do you propose? 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of their current advantages. 2) Continue on course with printing generic cards that help large vampires, such as the several solid ones released in 3rd Edition (I'm thinking mainly of Dance Macabre, Grooming the Protege, and Minor Irritation).

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1171295620.0...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 12, 10:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> What fix do you propose? > > 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to > see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of > their current advantages. > Pretty good, and I've gotta say I _really_ liked the increased speed of games making use of your "undue influence" idea, the few times I've played it. Game play doesn't suffer at all, from what I've seen... I might suggest a change to "pay one and *forego* your influence phase..." instead. As-written, you could both dump your current crypt on the table, then go draw a fifth vampire all in the same turn. That one vampire would pop out, and a sixth would come up in the subsequent round, etc. With "forego", you'd be back to the pace of "pay and draw on one turn, influence out on the second" without other cards added for speed, which is closer to things as they are now (a new minion every other round), and may keep a little bit more of a lid on "speedy crypt" concepts... DaveZ AW

<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171284998....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > Hmm. I wrote a fairly detailed PERL script to parse the whole TWDA > for card frequencies, and here are the top cards: Your analysis may be more correct. All I did was grab a txt version, suck it into Word, and do global search-and-replace, counting the changed occurances. Admittedly, crude. Also, if someone had written "Blood Doll" or "Voter Captivation" in their description, I would have picked it up - don't know about you. Strange that they are so different - wonder if I looked at a subset of the TWDA. Either way, the conclusions is consistent. VC isn't in the majority of tournament winning decks - not surprising, as every deck doesn't [PRE] vote. Still, it shows that either 1) The card isn't broken or 2) If it is broken, relatively few people exploit it. I think the consensus on the board has been that it is "overpowered" - not "broken." By the same token, Govern, Kindred Spirirts and Freak Drive are overpowered. Change one, change em all - then on to the next tier of power (Conditioning, Legal Manipulation?), until everything is vanilla-favored. Thanks for cranking through this, and posting the results.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmm. #2 looks doable without much trouble. #1 might take more study. But anyway, that clears that.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > 2) Continue on course with printing generic cards that help large > vampires, such as the several solid ones released in 3rd Edition (I'm > thinking mainly of Dance Macabre, Grooming the Protege, and Minor > Irritation). More non-generic ones, too, please! - Ben Peal

bluedevil wrote: > 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to > see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of > their current advantages. This, as I've said before, still seems like overkill (changing the mid-game and end-game instead of just the opening). Some other options (some of which have been forward already): a) Unlimited transfers on each Methuselah's first turn, but restricted to "move pool to an uncontrolled vampire". b) Ten additional transfers on first turn (no restrictions on use). This could also be seen as a time-saver, as well (cutting down on game length), so would be appropriate for a V:EKN floor rule (since time limits are also a V:EKN floor rule addition) instead of being an adjustment to the base rules themselves. Other comments?

bluedevil schrieb: > On Feb 12, 10:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> What fix do you propose? > > 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to > see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of > their current advantages. But this does not specifically the weenie problem, it just makes big-cap decks faster without the inclusion of speed-up master cards, but since it also speeds up weenie decks it doesn´t change much imho. Example: Your predator influences 4 Ravnos Weenies in his 1st turn and play Parthenon. You influence Arika and Etrius (down to 8 pool) In his next turn he creates 4 Embraces. You then Minion Tap what he Suddens and Delays your Political Stranglehold. On his next turn he plays WoN and you are faced with 8 minions bleeding for 2 while having 8 pool. Most certainly you are dead. In it is not a very unlikely scenario for the Weenie Deck. So I think that it will give big-cap decks a certain speed advantage but will make them even more high-stakes. The advantage of the weenies is not only that they need less transfers, it´s also that they have much more actions available, so they can do more w/o playing cards. > 2) Continue on course with printing generic cards that help large > vampires, such as the several solid ones released in 3rd Edition (I'm > thinking mainly of > Dance Macabre, Grooming the Protege, and Minor Irritation). This is a much more conservative and safe option to solve the weenie problem. It also gives the Design Team the possibility to encourage play of certain big-cap Vampires (we all agree that Arika, Marcus, Lucinde and Queen Anne IS allready good), such as untitled 9-caps. -- johannes walch

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:hH%zh.43649$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: >> Small vampires are stronger than they should be. I've never heard anyone >> refute that statement. Can we get a fix please? > > What fix do you propose? Scott, First, thanks again for the attention you're giving the topic and the openness to considering options/opinions before making changes. Second, this should likely spawn a new thread, but I'll respond here for now. Some things have already been done within the existing rule set. It seems appropriate to recognize that progress and then see where one could build further. 1) The discipline-point equation for larger vampires has been adjusted upward - giving them more discipline-based card options and flexibility. 2) It appears that there has even been some attempt to create an "in-clan sub-discipline" which is primarily available in the larger vampires of that clan. 30% of G3-4 !Nos have [for] and 25% of the G3-4 Tremere have [nec]. When the density of these fourth disciplines is high enough, the larger vampires can actually begin to consider additional library options. 3) Large vampires have more useful special abilities. Auto-recurrance, innate rushes vampires, inherent stealth, hand size increase, cost reduction, vote doubling, etc. are all very good, assuming one actually builds around the ability and looks beyond vampires as a sack-o-disciplines. 4) There are more cards only useable by in contact with smaller vampires. I believe that the two area which offers the most promise are: the 2nd - giving large vampires in a clan connective "out-of-clan" disciplines and the 4th - providing additional "fattie" cards, both inside disciplines (e.g., Croc Tongue) and outside (e.g., Minor Irritation). I could envision an expansion which solely focuses as cards only useable by vampires of X capacity, or by older vampires interacting with younger vampires. It might go a long way towards advancing the cause of the elder...... Solutions that dramatically alter the rules structure are less favorable options, in my opinion. We enjoy the game as it is currently designed - to make wholesale changes might be better considered in a new game. And while White Wolf did re-design the World of Darkness, I really don't wish to obsolete my entire card collection in a similar move. 1) A long time ago, the LA group kicked around "Larger vampires an inherent +1 or +2 bleed, based on capacity" - but I find that a bit problematic, especially given the impact that "IC +2 bleed" has (especially in concert with +bleed disciplines). 2) Additional/unlimited influence - I didn't find the unlimited influence variant we played in Atlanta particularly rewarding - though I will admit that is mostly due to my deck design philosophy which usually stresses the building phase of the game. Cheers. D.

LSJ schrieb: > a) Unlimited transfers on each Methuselah's first turn, but restricted > to "move pool to an uncontrolled vampire". So if you have a bad crypt draw (e.g didn´t get your 10-cap star) your game is basically over, because you will take ages to get him out while everyone else has Arika+Marcus ready on turn 2. At the moment such a situation is allready undesireable but can be managed. It also makes Effective Management very effective ;-) > b) Ten additional transfers on first turn (no restrictions on use). > > This could also be seen as a time-saver, as well (cutting down on game > length), so would be appropriate for a V:EKN floor rule (since time > limits are also a V:EKN floor rule addition) instead of being an > adjustment to the base rules themselves. Sounds interesting in terms of time-saving, but since weenie decks will profit as well I am not sure if it will really balance the game more over the cap-spectrum, especially considering that 14 transfers will allow a weenie player to influence his whole crypt while the big-cap player still can´t influence to vamps. -- johannes walch

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:yv0Ah.43743$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Oh Noes! David, you're making him think those cards are good enough to solve the problem! :-) While cards like that are cute and nice and all, they don't come very close to actually redressing the inherent efficiency advantages of smaller vampires. This is IMO because the advantages of smaller vampires are inherent in the game's mechanics (they cost less pool and have, consequentially, more actions-per-pool-invested, more blocks-per-pool-invested, and so on). Printing cards that help bigger vampires means you have to build your deck with, draw, and play the cards at the right times to gain whatever benefits they can provide. The smaller vampires have no such requirement to use their comparative advantages. I think rules-based fixes would be far more effective than any "cards that help large vampires more than small ones" you'd be willing to print, Scott. (Something like "stackable non-unique Aranthebes" might get the job done, but it might be too large a hammer for your taste in hitting this particular nail. :-) Influence changes might do something, sure, but I think the action advantages over time are the bigger issue. Reducing small vampires' inherent bleed, votes, strength (or increasing the same for larger vampires, if you prefer) would be more apropos, I think. Josh too many rookies, not enough pros

[ quoted text not captured ] Such as: Action Requires a vampire of a given clan with a capacity above 7. Do X and untap this vampire. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

On Feb 12, 10:02 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > bluedevil schrieb: > > > On Feb 12, 10:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> What fix do you propose? > > > 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to > > see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of > > their current advantages. > > But this does not specifically the weenie problem, it just makes big-cap > decks faster without the inclusion of speed-up master cards, but since > it also speeds up weenie decks it doesn´t change much imho. > > Example: > > Your predator influences 4 Ravnos Weenies in his 1st turn and play > Parthenon. You influence Arika and Etrius (down to 8 pool) In his next > turn he creates 4 Embraces. You then Minion Tap what he Suddens and > Delays your Political Stranglehold. On his next turn he plays WoN and > you are faced with 8 minions bleeding for 2 while having 8 pool. Most > certainly you are dead. In it is not a very unlikely scenario for the > Weenie Deck. > > So I think that it will give big-cap decks a certain speed advantage but > will make them even more high-stakes. The advantage of the weenies is > not only that they need less transfers, it´s also that they have much > more actions available, so they can do more w/o playing cards. That's why I would prefer to see more cards that take advantage of large capacity vampire's powers. It's too bad that we need to consider speed in deck design, adding Dreams, Info Highway, etc., but the vampires really should be worth all the hassle. > > 2) Continue on course with printing generic cards that help large > > vampires, such as the several solid ones released in 3rd Edition (I'm > > thinking mainly of > > Dance Macabre, Grooming the Protege, and Minor Irritation). > > This is a much more conservative and safe option to solve the weenie > problem. It also gives the Design Team the possibility to encourage play > of certain big-cap Vampires (we all agree that Arika, Marcus, Lucinde > and Queen Anne IS allready good), such as untitled 9-caps. *casts a line for trolling* Ban PTO to make large non-Camarilla vampires easier to play? -- Dorrinal Blackmantle Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City

Dorrinal Blackmantle schrieb: > *casts a line for trolling* > Ban PTO to make large non-Camarilla vampires easier to play? No, that just makes ICs more difficult to play. But create cards which are even remotely as good as PTO and make them available only to certain vampires. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > LSJ schrieb: > >> a) Unlimited transfers on each Methuselah's first turn, but restricted >> to "move pool to an uncontrolled vampire". > > So if you have a bad crypt draw (e.g didn´t get your 10-cap star) your > game is basically over, because you will take ages to get him out while > everyone else has Arika+Marcus ready on turn 2. So one would either not build a star deck or accept the risk-reward ratio the star deck offers. > At the moment such a situation is allready undesireable but can be managed. > > It also makes Effective Management very effective ;-) Rather, it leaves Effective Management very effective. :-) >> b) Ten additional transfers on first turn (no restrictions on use). >> >> This could also be seen as a time-saver, as well (cutting down on game >> length), so would be appropriate for a V:EKN floor rule (since time >> limits are also a V:EKN floor rule addition) instead of being an >> adjustment to the base rules themselves. > > Sounds interesting in terms of time-saving, but since weenie decks will > profit as well I am not sure if it will really balance the game more > over the cap-spectrum, especially considering that 14 transfers will > allow a weenie player to influence his whole crypt while the big-cap > player still can´t influence to vamps. 14 transfers allows: 4 1-caps from uncontrolled 5 another 1-cap from crypt to controlled 5 another 1-cap from crypt to controlled For a total of 6 one caps for 8 pool. Not the whole crypt. One big-cap can handle this; no need for two. Weenie decks don't profit under the system. They may use the same mechanism, but the lose their out-of-the-gate "free" actions that they normally get. Net loss.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure this is a valid argument. Under this system the game becomes a nuclear arms race when two large-cap decks sit next to each other. Who draws their "burn opponent's 10-cap" card first? How many do they pack into each deck to make sure it's them? Iwould prefer the game didn't follow this rhetorical line. I'm not sure what this thread has brought to light; it seems that the issues have once again conflated into each other. Maybe someone could bitch about DI for a while? Merlin - confusion in my eye

Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in news:eqq6iq$gef$1 @news01.versatel.de: > bluedevil schrieb: >> On Feb 12, 10:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> What fix do you propose? >> >> 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to >> see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of >> their current advantages. > > But this does not specifically the weenie problem, it just makes big-cap > decks faster without the inclusion of speed-up master cards, but since > it also speeds up weenie decks it doesn´t change much imho. > Yeah, but it only "speeds up" weenie to the limit of the size of the crypt, ie 4 vampires... > Example: > > Your predator influences 4 Ravnos Weenies in his 1st turn and play > Parthenon. You influence Arika and Etrius (down to 8 pool) Why does your example include reckless decisions (downto 8 pool) when confronted with a predator that is obviously working quickly on a weenie concept? > In his next > turn he creates 4 Embraces. Do I sit there and drool with my Arika and Etrius while all of this is happening? > You then Minion Tap what he Suddens and > Delays your Political Stranglehold. I would have played Domain Challenge, but OK. > On his next turn he plays WoN and > you are faced with 8 minions bleeding for 2 while having 8 pool. Most > certainly you are dead. In it is not a very unlikely scenario for the > Weenie Deck. > I'm dead? Ohhh NOOEEEESSS!11!one11 Ahem. Pardon me ;-) Your point might be better made if you didn't resort to a "Perfect Draw" scenario on the part of the Ravnos weenie deck (So, his opening hand was 4 Embrace, a Sudden, a DT and Parthenon, and he top-decked a WoN..? He darned well _better_ oust his first prey...), and a "Perfect Imbecile" scenario on the part of the big cap player (Anyone who spent 22 pool on minions, which they cannot make any effective use of, _should_ be ousted quickly, regardless of whether or not they have a Mega-Predator with a Perfect Draw.) > So I think that it will give big-cap decks a certain speed advantage but > will make them even more high-stakes. The advantage of the weenies is > not only that they need less transfers, it´s also that they have much > more actions available, so they can do more w/o playing cards. > Meh. The way I see it, weenies come out quickly under any circumstances. At least if you remove the "three turn penalty" to larger minions (not only do they take more pool to influence, they take more turns to influence, too), you have the ability to act with about the same response time as the weenie deck, even if you have fewer actions. What you do with that capability is up to you as a deck-builder... Your example does show one thing clearly; big cap decks under unlimited influence rules should (and can) incorporate more defenses to interfere earlier with their pred/prey's game. Fortunately, you'll have space for that in the deck, since you're theoretically using fewer cards towards speeding up/cheapening influence. An aside, I also like how this kind of rule enhances mid-caps. Somewhat awkward 5 and 6 caps become more interesting, in that you can get them out rightaway without waiting a round for that extra one or two influence... My guess is that a rule like this would promote their use, even more so than big caps or weenies (also a good thing, IMO). DZ AW

LSJ wrote: > For a total of 6 one caps for 8 pool. Not the whole crypt. > One big-cap can handle this; no need for two. That's honestly been your experience, that one big-cap vampire can handle six small-cap ones? That's very different from what I've seen in play. John Eno

Darby Keeney <darby....@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) A long time ago, the LA group kicked around "Larger vampires an > inherent +1 or +2 bleed, based on capacity" - but I find that a bit > problematic, especially given the impact that "IC +2 bleed" has > (especially in concert with +bleed disciplines). I believe it was something like: 1-2capacity = -1 bleed 3-7capacity = +0 bleed 8-9capacity = +1 bleed 10-11capacity = +2 bleed Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > bluedevil wrote: >> 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase >> to see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of >> their current advantages. > > This, as I've said before, still seems like overkill (changing the > mid-game and end-game instead of just the opening). How about 1, 2, 3, 4, n+1...? Simple, easy to explain. That way, you still keep the 'going-first' disadvantage while maintaining a slow progression that infinite transfers gives you, just putting it off until midgame or so. Kevin M. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] For one turn (the limit of the "only one vampire" restriction), when examined honestly, yes. That is: one turn, smart play, marginally competent deck-building skills. See, granting the weenie predator 14 transfers means the prey (who went first) gets 11 transfers (one vampire, say a 9, 10, or 11 cap) first turn and then four transfers second turn (plus any "oh, I've got big cap crypt, so I might need this card" library cards he uses in the first two turns). Then the weenies go off. Block the worst one (maybe after a bounce, plus a wake or Obedience or Cats' Guidance or *something* that reflects at least marginally competent deck-building) and you've handled a minimum of two, but probably three, maybe four. Next turn, four more transfers (barring something in your library to speed that along) and you have your second vampire (11 and 8, or 9 and 10). And so on.

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> bluedevil wrote: >>> 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase >>> to see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of >>> their current advantages. >> This, as I've said before, still seems like overkill (changing the >> mid-game and end-game instead of just the opening). > > How about 1, 2, 3, 4, n+1...? Simple, easy to explain. > > That way, you still keep the 'going-first' disadvantage while maintaining > a slow progression that infinite transfers gives you, just putting it off > until midgame or so. Too much bookkeeping, and hits the mid- and late- game more than the target area (the opening). Making GtU and other uncontrolled-region bloat even stronger than it is currently, for example.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in news:wx3Ah.6100$_k....@newsfe07.phx: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> bluedevil wrote: >>> 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase >>> to see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, >>> of their current advantages. >> >> This, as I've said before, still seems like overkill (changing the >> mid-game and end-game instead of just the opening). > > How about 1, 2, 3, 4, n+1...? Simple, easy to explain. > > That way, you still keep the 'going-first' disadvantage while > maintaining a slow progression that infinite transfers gives you, just > putting it off until midgame or so. > > If the objective is to mitigate the weenies' "out of the gate" speed advantage, this doesn't do it so well. Also, if by n+1 (forgive a poor chemist his crappy math skills) you mean 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... then this makes the influence advantage of fourth and fifth position even stronger, If instead, n+1 (assume a 4 player table) means 1,2,3,4, 4,4,4,4, 5,5,5,5, 6,6,6,6... ...then I'm a bit more on board, but I still don't see how this fix helps the "weenie speed advantage" issue. DZ AW

Merlin schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, I was unprecise. I did not want any similiar card than PTO, just something that is at least some of the way as powerfull as PTO is but for another "group" of vampires. And something can be many different cards with different requirements (capacity, clan ...). I know that PTO is on the very top of the power curve and I dont want to escalata that curve. But creating something at 80% of PTO doesn´t seem like an escalation to me. -- johannes walch

LSJ schrieb: >> Sounds interesting in terms of time-saving, but since weenie decks >> will profit as well I am not sure if it will really balance the game >> more over the cap-spectrum, especially considering that 14 transfers >> will allow a weenie player to influence his whole crypt while the >> big-cap player still can´t influence to vamps. > > > 14 transfers allows: > 4 1-caps from uncontrolled > 5 another 1-cap from crypt to controlled > 5 another 1-cap from crypt to controlled > > For a total of 6 one caps for 8 pool. Not the whole crypt. > One big-cap can handle this; no need for two. Sorry I used the wrong term. I meant his whole uncontrolled region. And I was not assuming 1-caps I was rather thinking about 2-4 caps. 14 transfers will allow to influence 4 of them in almost any combination. And some of them will even have the superior level of their discipline. I have a hard time seeing that 1 and probably 2 big caps in the next turn can handle that, even if they have access cards that provide defensive capabilities (I assume that is what you are referring to as smart deckbuilding). I mean, you might even survive but being at very low (<5) pool isn´t really a very good basis for a successfull game. Your prey could kill you with a vote, just because killing the predator can be quite usefull in many situations. -- johannes walch

Howdy, <snip suggestions for influence phase changes> > Other comments? I haven't put a lot of thought into it, so it may be stupid, but how about unlimited transfers to one vampire per turn? That would, to my mind, really, really (perhaps too) strongly reverse the bias against big-caps. Everyone ends up essentially producing the same amount of actions per turn. Alex

On Feb 12, 5:56 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 7:56 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure what this shows exactly about the power level of voter > > cap, but it's definitely not the most popular card for tournament > > winning decks. > > Interesting. Did the script also look for "Voter Cap" (as well as > abreviated versions of other cards--"Wake", etc?) I don't know that it > would have a significant impact, but it might. I definitely didn't get all variations, but I got a few of the big ones. I looked at any card with a frequency greater than ~50, and combined it if appropriate. Here were the big ones: - Made everything lowercase - Replaced all ` with ' - Stripped leading and trailing spaces - Special cases: + anything with "second tradition" got combined + anything with "fifth tradition" got combined + wwef and wake with evening's got combined + krc got combined I looked at Voter Cap, and the most frequent alternate spelling was "votercaptivation" and "voter capitivation", both with a mere 8. So I didn't combine those. :) Ira

On Feb 12, 8:18 am, "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: > <ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > Hmm. I wrote a fairly detailed PERL script to parse the whole TWDA > > for card frequencies, and here are the top cards: > > Your analysis may be more correct. All I did was grab a txt version, suck > it into Word, and do global search-and-replace, counting the changed > occurances. Admittedly, crude. Oh, I see. In this case: 4x Voter Captivation I counted that as 4 occurances, and you would have counted is as only 1. > Strange that they are so different - wonder if I looked at a subset of the > TWDA. It makes complete sense; we were measuring different things. I was counting how many copies of a card were in a deck, and you were counting if it showed up at least once. > Still, it shows that either > 1) The card isn't broken or > 2) If it is broken, relatively few people exploit it. Hmm. Perhaps. I think we all agree that the original Mind Rape was broken, or Return to Innocence. If we are going to use this frequency listing as argument for determining brokenness of cards, broken cards should show up near the top of the list. Could someone post the dates from when those cards were originally tournament legal, to the time they were nerfed/banned? I'll run a search just for when they were available for use. We could do that with a variety of cards, like 5th tradition, Dramatic Upheaval, etc. > I think the consensus on the board has been that it is "overpowered" - not > "broken." By the same token, Govern, Kindred Spirirts and Freak Drive are > overpowered. Change one, change em all - then on to the next tier of power > (Conditioning, Legal Manipulation?), until everything is vanilla-favored. Exactly. In fact, if the evaluation of a "powerful" card is it's ability to help you win tournaments, this frequency listing is a good measure of a card's power. Then again, I think we all agree that Weak of Nightmares is a powerful card, but it doesn't show up in the top of the tournament winning list. > Thanks for cranking through this, and posting the results. np. It was fun. :) Now, how useful it was... I don't really know. :) Ira

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Influence changes might do something, sure, but I think the action > advantages over time are the bigger issue. Reducing small vampires' > inherent bleed, votes, strength (or increasing the same for larger vampires, > if you prefer) would be more apropos, I think. i think adjusting those sorts of things would be very scary from a play-balance point of view, and playtesting, etc. Also, it'd be complete structural reform, which tends not to go down very well with the player base. I'd, personally, rather see _limits_ in place based on capacity. eg: a vampire can never have more votes, stealth, intercept or bleed than it's current capacity. You may not play a card to increase a vampire's votes, stealth, intercept or bleed above it's current capacity. how's that? simple to remember, no maths required (unlike if the rule was capacity/2 round down, or something annoying), and isn't a HUGE change for a lot of decks. you could maybe include strength in the list, for consistency. 'cause i guess 2, 3 or 4 strength is still nothing to sneeze at when followed with a disarm, for those weenie pot lovers amongst us. (hi peter! :D ) effects this would have that i can think of off the top of my head: 1 caps can't be prince/archbishop or 'greater' titles, only primogen, bishops or prisci. weenie vote will be harder to 'push' with (awe/bewitching), Awe on big caps will also be a little more limited (if your IC already has 4 votes, then the max you can awe for is 7...which is still a lot, but in line with what some other people wanted to do to the card in the other thread). Laz/Enkidu multirush still works fine :) weenie dom watered down. weenie kindred spirits still reasonably viable (but defenders will be able to judge how much intercept they might need to save up, where applicable, and know that the acting minion won't be able to go above a certain stealth) -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

In article <Xns98D562574B...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Just want to make sure I'm understanding your position on VC correctly, > is all. We can talk about it over a beer on Saturday... I'm buying! Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

On Feb 12, 9:23 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > This is IMO because the advantages of smaller vampires are inherent in the > game's mechanics (they cost less pool and have, consequentially, more > actions-per-pool-invested, more blocks-per-pool-invested, and so on). > Printing cards that help bigger vampires means you have to build your deck > with, draw, and play the cards at the right times to gain whatever benefits > they can provide. The smaller vampires have no such requirement to use > their comparative advantages. Barring library cards, I definitely agree that small vampires get more actions-per-pool-invested and more blocks-per-pool-invested. Nonetheless, every deck has library cards. By choosing to play with big-cap vampires, you can get much more powerful effects, like Eternal Vigilance, No Secrets, any of the cards that give blood to younger uncontrolled vamps, any of the votes that help big vamps, the combo discipline cards that tend to be more powerful, etc. I do agree that when you choose to play big caps you have to ensure they can act/block enough, but there are plenty of existing cards in the game that allow such things (freak drive, forced march, helicopter, wake varieties, etc.) That said, I still think big caps could use a little more help, but I don't think it's quite as dire as you make it out to be. I think the weenie, mid-cap, big-cap decision creates interesting games and a variety of playable decks, which is exactly what I want. > Influence changes might do something, sure, but I think the action > advantages over time are the bigger issue. Reducing small vampires' > inherent bleed, votes, strength (or increasing the same for larger vampires, > if you prefer) would be more apropos, I think. I think influence changes would be a great idea, not only because it helps big caps get out sooner and playing their cards, it also speeds up the game in general (which would be a very significant plus!) Timeouts and long games are significant detriments to fun play. Regarding widespread rules changes related to capacity, haven't you noticed that many big caps have inherent bonuses to bleed, strength, intercept, stealth, and votes? The game is already balanced exactly in the way you are suggesting. Personally, I think LSJ is an incredible game designer for how well this game has improved over time without a huge spike in the power curve, all the while introducing new mechanics and allowing for a diversity of strong deck types. It's really amazing! Ira

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-747307.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <Xns98D562574B...@207.115.17.102>, > atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Just want to make sure I'm understanding your position on VC correctly, >> is all. We can talk about it over a beer on Saturday... > > I'm buying! I vote in favor of you buying! :-) Josh

In article <53c82cF...@mid.individual.net>, "Joshua Duffin" <joshdu...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sucker! Now I Voter Cap for 8! Ha! :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 12, 5:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Other comments? i'd like something on the line of " if a player spends all his transfers on a single uncontrolled vampire he gets 2 extra transfer to spend on that same vampire" Andrea

On Feb 12, 5:29 pm, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote in messagenews:pdb6-747307.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > > > In article <Xns98D562574BBDFatomwea...@207.115.17.102>, > > atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Just want to make sure I'm understanding your position on VC correctly, > >> is all. We can talk about it over a beer on Saturday... > > > I'm buying! > Excellent! > I vote in favor of you buying! :-) > Does this imply that Mr. Duffin will be there in person for the Beer Referendum..? DaveZ Atom Weaver

In message <MyNyh.3694$4H1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <QbKyh.25576$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ >> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >>> ben...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> What metric are you using to rate a card's power? Why is the >>>> competitive environment not a viable metric? >>> The metric supplied by looking at similar effects from other cards, >>>obviously. >> That shows that a card is better than another. It doesn't show that >>one >> card is broken. For example, let's take a look at some permanent vote >> gainers: > >Again confusing broken with overpowered. > >If you don't like using comparisons of power to investigate relative >power, then there aren't many options left. You're confusing "more powerful" with "overpowered." The examples that you have blithely ignored show this. I guess you just don't want to actually deal with explaining why the cards are overpowered, even when it's very, very clear that the difference between "more powerful" and "overpowered" or "powerful" and "broken" was what I was asking for. You just duck the question. If you can't admit that you're ducking the question, then there aren't many options left. You won't provide actual evidence to back this opinion up. You'll just tell people that if they don't agree with your assessment, "there aren't many options left." That's a whole heap of crap, and something I would never have expected from you. >> Would you care to cite examples of tournaments that show it's >> overpowered? Not just very good for its deck, but actually overpowered. > >Pick any tournament in which a player used VC in her deck. Proof through LSJ asserting it's true is no proof at all. Please provide some actual evidence, not just re-stating your own opinion. Your opinion is *not* actually proof of anything other than it being your opinion. It's interesting talking to playtesters, who tell me that you'd give them absolutely no credibility if they just came to you and said "New Card X is overpowered. Just look at any game it's played in. Fix it." You wouldn't fix things for them without them showing evidence. Why are we expected to believe your proof through assertion when you won't believe anyone else's? What is it about your opinion that makes it more right? What specifically is it about you changing your opinion after the card being in the game for nearly 13 years that means that your opinion to change it now is right, when your opinion to not change it was right every time you've reprinted the card? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <40_yh.17021$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >ben...@gmail.com wrote: >> What do we do to determine "overpoweredness" (card balance)? How >> much more than another card must a card do in order for it to be >> "overpowered"? > >If you have an answer, please let me know. Otherwise, it falls to >judgment, obviously. Please provide some of the evidence that informs your opinion. Note that "see any tournament in which it has been played" is not evidence. Many people did not see that many previously fixed broken or overpowered cards were broken or overpowered in their tournament environment, so you will need to do more than that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <fE6zh.5756$gj4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Those who don't wish to participate in a constructive discussion are >free not to, of course. How is it constructive to assert that VC is over-powered without providing evidence to support that assertion, other than "look at every tournament it's played in"? :-( Since, clearly, the rest of us have seen it played in many tournaments, that we're not seeing the same thing as you is apparent. Yet you just say "look at any tournament it's been played in." Okay, now I don't agree it's overpowered. So your evidence provides no way forward for examination, just as you know it wouldn't because otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5e5zh.17093$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >I'm using objective data -- comparisons to other cards (and the >subjective judgment that free blood/pool is good for a deck's ability >to win). This proves that a card is better than another. Please show how you go from VC being better than some other cards to VC being overpowered. This is what you are not showing, or even attempting to explain. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Fz3Ah.75313$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: <six weenies vs one fattie> >Then the weenies go off. Block the worst one (maybe after a bounce, >plus a wake or Obedience or Cats' Guidance or *something* that >reflects at least marginally competent deck-building) and you've >handled a minimum of two, but probably three, maybe four. Next turn, >four more transfers (barring something in your library to speed that >along) and you have your second vampire (11 and 8, or 9 and 10). And so >on. Thing is, a weenie deck gets much better card cycling possibilities early on. It can play a master card, just as the fattie deck can, and both have a discard phase. But then it can take six actions, if it has six minions, and throw away cards on each action to get to the good stuff, if it's not got what it needs right now. Most fattie decks can generate quite a bit of card cycling potential, but it's usually not available early in the game - equipping a heart of Nizchetus, getting out The Barrens (of which you might only have a couple in the deck), breeding its own weenies (which can take several turns), or whatever. But it can't sift through cards with anything like as ruthless efficiency in the first couple of turns to get the defensive wakes it needs. How many are in the deck to get maybe 2 or 3 in the first hand? Let's say they're in the first 9 cards. 3 defensive cards there, 90 card deck, so that's approximately 30 of various defensive cards in the deck. That seems like a retrograde step for a fattie deck. If we're considering marginally competent deck building, how many of those weenie decks are going to include a Misdirection or an Anarch Troublemaker? Not so useful at the moment, when a deck can be getting out vampires much more slowly, but when it can get six out on the first turn, that seems like a very different pay-off. Now the deck throws down several Scouting Mission, Threats, Bonding etc. (i.e. free bleeds, so they can go again next turn) If you can defend against two, that still leaves 4 bleeds for, say, 3 - and potentially throwing away useless cards on the blocked actions. Though with something like Misdirection, I'm not sure you'd even necessarily be able to defend against 2. Unless the fattie deck gets a reasonably lucky shuffle (or, avoids a bad shuffle), it looks like it won't be particularly happy. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <eqphar$9lg$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: <snip - Visit from the Capuchin> >I think the change was done not to nerf combat decks but to counter the >massive-event decks which were disrupting the game very much by just >playing most to all of the available (gehenna) events. I think there was also a modicum of designer intent, but that that wasn't sufficiently large to warrant errata. From LSJ's rulings, and discussing it with him by email etc., it seemed like Visit wasn't supposed to do what it did, but a strict application of card text that hadn't foreseen the situation meant that it happened. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-763A51.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >Voter Cap is just, likely, too good of a bonus. Compare Anathema. If we can say "Assuming that you're calling and passing votes then VC is too good," then can we also assume that a deck playing Anathema is doing what its doing successfully? Getting 11 pool from burning Enkidu seems like a lot more worry than a Voter Captivation. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1171288466.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >On Feb 12, 2:26 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> 1 caps banishing 11 caps (as did happen) was generally considered to be >> beyond "really, really good." But this wasn't established just by >> looking at card text, but also by virtue of seeing the effect of the >> card in play. > >Oh, I know. I was on the forfront of considering it beyond "really, >really good". But I'm not for a second convinced that it being >determined to be beyond "Really, really good" was the result of >anything other than looking at the card, seeing what it could do, >comparing it to similar cards, and saying "Huh. That is way too good". If that were true, anyone could do that at any time. Do a search for Banishment in <http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR6-23. htm> and <http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7.htm> which fixed many broken cards. Fame and its infinite self-torpor loop potential, Mind Rape, Tomb, Return to Innocence (which wasn't fixed *enough*), Sleeping Mind, Thoughts Betrayed... Why not fix Banishment then? It was obvious that 1 cap could banish an 11 cap to any old bozo reading card text. But it wasn't fixed then. So there was, presumably, something about it that caused LSJ to change it later. >> This is perhaps the most obvious "power card" that wasn't exactly >> broken. But a one blood cost to it doesn't completely rewrite a whole >> strategy in the way that completely altering how Voter Cap would to (a >> lot of) Presence voters. It just makes it a slightly less no-brain >> defence. > >And yet, even though the card wasn't particularly broken, it got >fixed. And the game was better for it. Yeah, altering Voter Cap would >have a significant effect on the strategy of a lot of Presence vote >decks. But then, altering Immortal Grapple had a significant effect on >the strategy of a lot of Potence combat decks. And yet we all >survived. I'd argue that Immortal Grapple hasn't really changed that significantly, though. The decks still do what they need to do - pound someone into the dirt. The scale of the nerfs suggested to Voter Cap radically alter what the decks do, and how fattie decks can survive against a weenie Dominate horde. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > Sorry I used the wrong term. I meant his whole uncontrolled region. And > I was not assuming 1-caps I was rather thinking about 2-4 caps. 14 > transfers will allow to influence 4 of them in almost any combination. > And some of them will even have the superior level of their discipline. > > I have a hard time seeing that 1 and probably 2 big caps in the next > turn can handle that, even if they have access cards that provide > defensive capabilities It will have an easier time of it than that deck would under the current rules.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <40_yh.17021$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >> ben...@gmail.com wrote: >>> What do we do to determine "overpoweredness" (card balance)? How >>> much more than another card must a card do in order for it to be >>> "overpowered"? >> If you have an answer, please let me know. Otherwise, it falls to >> judgment, obviously. > > Please provide some of the evidence that informs your opinion. See my first post.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <MyNyh.3694$4H1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> In message <QbKyh.25576$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ >>> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >>>> ben...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> What metric are you using to rate a card's power? Why is the >>>>> competitive environment not a viable metric? >>>> The metric supplied by looking at similar effects from other cards, >>>> obviously. >>> That shows that a card is better than another. It doesn't show that >>> one >>> card is broken. For example, let's take a look at some permanent vote >>> gainers: >> Again confusing broken with overpowered. >> >> If you don't like using comparisons of power to investigate relative >> power, then there aren't many options left. > > You're confusing "more powerful" with "overpowered." The examples that > you have blithely ignored show this. Um, no. > I guess you just don't want to > actually deal with explaining why the cards are overpowered, I have. Free blood/pool at the level provided by VC is overly powerful. > even when > it's very, very clear that the difference between "more powerful" and > "overpowered" or "powerful" and "broken" was what I was asking for. You > just duck the question. It wasn't clear, given the context of your post, which seemed to be looking for broken. > If you can't admit that you're ducking the question, then there aren't > many options left. Fine.

On Feb 12, 11:12 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Pretty good, and I've gotta say I _really_ liked the increased speed of > games making use of your "undue influence" idea, the few times I've played > it. Game play doesn't suffer at all, from what I've seen... Thanks. It has a few downsides for sure, but IMO it's a net win. > I might suggest a change to "pay one and *forego* your influence > phase..." instead. As-written, you could both dump your current crypt on > the table, then go draw a fifth vampire all in the same turn. That one > vampire would pop out, and a sixth would come up in the subsequent round, > etc. With "forego", you'd be back to the pace of "pay and draw on one > turn, influence out on the second" without other cards added for speed, > which is closer to things as they are now (a new minion every other round), > and may keep a little bit more of a lid on "speedy crypt" concepts... Good point, and I agree.

On Feb 12, 11:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > This, as I've said before, still seems like overkill (changing the mid-game and > end-game instead of just the opening). IME, most of the influencing in the midgame and endgame is in the form of freebies, most noteably Governing down. Leaving the rate of transfers uncapped would seem to me to have the primary effect of making Governing down more powerful, i.e. helping fatties. But, it certainly is a big, sweeping change and perhaps you are seeing something I am not. > Some other options (some of which have been forward already): > > a) Unlimited transfers on each Methuselah's first turn, but restricted to "move > pool to an uncontrolled vampire". > > b) Ten additional transfers on first turn (no restrictions on use). I think as long as weenie decks keep having to pay one to see one and not be able to get it to the ready region without additional cards, it is better to keep things simply unlimited. If you can remind me why unlimited on turn 9 is bad, I might change my mind. But honestly, part of the appeal of unlimited vs. your suggestions to me is simplicity. That rates very highly in my book when it comes to game design. > This could also be seen as a time-saver, as well (cutting down on game length), > so would be appropriate for a V:EKN floor rule (since time limits are also a > V:EKN floor rule addition) instead of being an adjustment to the base rules > themselves. > > Other comments?

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I agree to that. But since this will be a very substantial change to the game I would prefer to have one that "fits" better. Something that will help *only* the big vamps (and probably not all of them) and not help the big vamps more than it will help the small vamps. I think it is easier to find a balanced solution with the specific approach than with the general approach. I think the way to go is new cards that enable more actions for the big vampires, and carefully limit this to certain (groups of) vampires (Arika does not need more actions). Such as (and it is just a very quick example, nothing very refined): "Size does matter", Action Only usable by an untitled vampire with a capacity over 7. Enter combat with a younger vampire as a (D) action. Untap after the action, even if it is blocked. -- johannes walch

On Feb 13, 2:15 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: <snip weenies still have it better> I think it is intentional (well, for me it is) that weenie decks still have it better under the proposed system. Just like with bleedzookas, I think the presence of mono-discipline weenie decks is a *good* thing in the game, mainly in terms of giving new players something they can grasp easily and have a good shot at winning with. Weenie decks are even better for this than stealth bleed, because if they screw up and lose a nerd it doesn't really impact their game that much. So it's OK that weenies still tend to be a better deal than fattie decks, even under a much more generous influence system. The individual nerds are more squishy and can accomplish less individually, but more in aggregate. I don't want to see their advantages disappear altogether. I just don't want them to be egregious.

On Feb 12, 12:02 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > But this does not specifically the weenie problem, it just makes big-cap > decks faster without the inclusion of speed-up master cards, but since > it also speeds up weenie decks it doesn´t change much imho. First, as things stand in a highly competitive environment, you need to see that master card to enhance your influences, or you suffer direly. Masters are the strongest cards in the game, and you are eating a significant chunk of yours on something that still is prayerish, and probably a dead card anytime after the first turn. So, don't downplay not requiring those master cards. That in itself is a significant balancing element. Next, yes it's true, everybody speeds up. But as things stand, weenies are "fast" and fatties are "slow". With the rising tide, you get a new relationship of "fast" and "faster". That, to me, is moving things in the proper direction. > Example: > > Your predator influences 4 Ravnos Weenies in his 1st turn and play > Parthenon. You influence Arika and Etrius (down to 8 pool) I don't want to get too bogged down in specifics. I would suggest trying it out and seeing if it breaks. You might be surprised, or you might give us all (OK, me) some very valuable feedback. It's like playtesting real sets.... it's easy to be an armchair genius and say this or that is broken, but quite another thing to demonstrate it in play. But what I do want to comment on is "I influence out Arika and Etrius". That is, probably, retarded. This system *will* give you enough rope to hang yourself with, and it's a whole other dimension of skill to know how to manage your now-unlimited transfers. The best analogy that I have is an old pen and paper RPG called "Rolemaster". Compared to other games at the time, this game gave low-level characters these *huge* attack bonuses. But the combat system was built with mechanics such that you allocated your defense for each round of combat out of that same pool. So in that game, yes you *could* throw everything into offense and go screaming forward, but it would probably get you killed. Similarly for this system (although in practice there are times when that is exactly what you want to do, and reading the table and knowing when and where to do it is, like I said, a skill. I like that).

andrea....@infinito.it wrote in news:1171328469.262655.219320 @a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] I like the function, but the effect only speeds up 6 caps... Maybe, "spend four transfers to move as much blood as you wish from your pool to one vampire."..? DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > andrea....@infinito.it wrote in news:1171328469.262655.219320 > @a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > >> On Feb 12, 5:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> Other comments? >> i'd like something on the line of " if a player spends all his >> transfers on a single uncontrolled vampire he gets 2 extra transfer to >> spend on that same vampire" >> > > > I like the function, but the effect only speeds up 6 caps... ? It speeds up all 5+ caps. > Maybe, "spend four transfers to move as much blood as you wish from your > pool to one vampire."..? Also nice, but unnecessarily overlooks players 1-3 at the start of the game (p1 or p2 can bring out a weenie, but p3 cannot bring out a 4+ cap).

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:GijAh.10353$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: >> andrea....@infinito.it wrote in news:1171328469.262655.219320 >> @a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: >> >>> On Feb 12, 5:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Other comments? >>> i'd like something on the line of " if a player spends all his >>> transfers on a single uncontrolled vampire he gets 2 extra transfer >>> to spend on that same vampire" >>> >> >> >> I like the function, but the effect only speeds up 6 caps... > > ? > > It speeds up all 5+ caps. > I was unclear, and considering the "normal" condition of 4 transfers per turn. +2 transfers means you could only get a 6 cap up in a single turn through this mechanic. 7-11 still would require two turns to get up and going (which is already the case for 7 and 8 caps). That's not a sufficient improvement in speed, IMO. >> Maybe, "spend four transfers to move as much blood as you wish from >> your pool to one vampire."..? > > Also nice, but unnecessarily overlooks players 1-3 at the start of the > game (p1 or p2 can bring out a weenie, but p3 cannot bring out a 4+ > cap). > True. On their face, I prefer unlimited transfers or +10 transfers on Round One, anyways. DZ AW

On Feb 13, 2:34 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <pdb6-763A51.10135210022...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D > Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> writes: > Compare Anathema. > > If we can say "Assuming that you're calling and passing votes then VC is > too good," then can we also assume that a deck playing Anathema is doing > what its doing successfully? > > Getting 11 pool from burning Enkidu seems like a lot more worry than a > Voter Captivation. To get Anathema to work, you need to be good at *two* difficult, card intensive things. Not just one. Making the difficulty level for payoff much, much larger. And riskier. Strikes me as a reasonable tradeoff of risk>payoff (Anathema) where Voter Cap doesn't as much. I get and see Voter Cap to pay off all the time, multiple times per game. If not per turn. And that is *with* folks playing with votes and intercept. Anathema? I am hard pressed to think of more than one example of Anathema paying off at all, let alone multiple times per game. But maybe that is just me. -Peter

On 13 Feb., 14:46, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > atomweaver wrote: > > andrea.la.ma...@infinito.it wrote in news:1171328469.262655.219320 [ quoted text not captured ] Additional transfers always have the problem of helping weenie crypts, even though that may not desired. How about such an additional rule for the influence phase: "Once per game at the start of the influence phase, a player may spend all his available transfers and pay X pool to move a vampire from his uncontrolled region to the ready region, where X is the capacity of that vampire. If the vampire already had blood counters on him, those are burned. Put X/2 blood counters (rounded up/down?) from the blood bank on the vampire." Kind of duplicates the speed effect of Tomb of Rameses III for all players regardless of how many transfers a player has. The cost of this could be increased by removing another uncontrolled vampire from the game as well...

preac...@gmx.at wrote: > Additional transfers always have the problem of helping weenie crypts, > even though that may not desired. Increased options helps every deck, yes. But by helping weenies less than it helps non-weenies, the weenies wind up with a net loss of "help". > How about such an additional rule for the influence phase: > > "Once per game at the start of the influence phase, a player may spend > all his available transfers and pay X pool to move a vampire from his > uncontrolled region to the ready region, where X is the capacity of > that vampire. If the vampire already had blood counters on him, those > are burned. Put X/2 blood counters (rounded up/down?) from the blood > bank on the vampire." > > Kind of duplicates the speed effect of Tomb of Rameses III for all > players regardless of how many transfers a player has. > > The cost of this could be increased by removing another uncontrolled > vampire from the game as well... Fine effect for a card, but a bit unwieldy for a rule.

LSJ wrote: [...] > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain Not true. Renewed Vigor grants an even easier and more important blood gain. So does Baltimore Purge + Diablerie with multiple actions. > (repeatable, Same with Renewed Vigor and diablerie actions after a Baltimore Purge. > unblockable, What do you mean with unblockable? Only actions can be blocked ;-) Unless you mean that it cannot be cancelled, countered or prevented from being played, which is false. [...] -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

On Feb 12, 6:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Some other options (some of which have been forward already): > > a) Unlimited transfers on each Methuselah's first turn, but restricted to "move > pool to an uncontrolled vampire". > > b) Ten additional transfers on first turn (no restrictions on use). > > Other comments? C) If you want to slow down weenies dramatically, then include a 'scarcity' idea for all vampires. In other words, every time a new vampire enters play (yes, even through creation rites, embrace, etc., but not temptation / from a sinking ship etc.), for each minion you have beyond the first three, you must pay an extra pool to bring them into play. In other words, the first 3 vamps are free, the next one costs an extra pool, the following one an extra 2 pool etc. This would symbolise the extra amount of effort it takes a methuselah to control that many vamps. You could fiddle with the numbers to make the balance right, for example, making it just cost an extra pool for every minion past the second (1st 2 costs nothing, then all the rest cost 1 extra pool). Of course this would be judged by the number of vamps in your control at any given time, so a weenie deck still has the advantage that it's vamps will be largely expendable, but it would also help prevent breeder decks, which I think many realise is a very powerful archetype, whether it be the Brujah Debaters, !Torries el Grande, or the Nightmarish Ravnos, or any other breeder deck. Hmmm, might need a little adapting for the imbued as well, but they could have their own special rule on a new lovely rulecard which can double as the infamous "Wall-paper" card (When this card is played, lick the face-side and put this card face-down on your card box.) Not saying this would work, but it is an alterative to slowing down the weenie hordes that doesn't involve transfers, and includes other kinds of nasty breeder decks that can avoid those transfer issues anyway.

Damnans wrote: > LSJ wrote: > [...] >> Voter Cap itself may be the problem. >> >> It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain > > Not true. Renewed Vigor grants an even easier and more important blood > gain. Far less easy. Requires OBE and an exclusive action. "More important" is unsupported. It seems unsupportable, to me, but that may be just because no supporting evidence has been given. Different, yes. But not strictly more important (nor strictly less important). > So does Baltimore Purge + Diablerie with multiple actions. Less easy. Less controllable. But it is arguable that BP is also overpowered, yes. Bring up cases that you consider "totally broken" doesn't really help the "isn't overpowered" case, however. >> (repeatable, > > Same with Renewed Vigor and diablerie actions after a Baltimore Purge. >> unblockable, > > What do you mean with unblockable? Only actions can be blocked ;-) Exactly. Unblockable, instantaneous effect. > Unless you mean that it cannot be cancelled, countered or prevented > from being played, which is false. So why would you think that's what I meant?

On 13 Feb., 16:35, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > preache...@gmx.at wrote: > > Additional transfers always have the problem of helping weenie crypts, > > even though that may not desired. > > Increased options helps every deck, yes. But by helping weenies less than it > helps non-weenies, the weenies wind up with a net loss of "help". Naturally. > > How about such an additional rule for the influence phase: > > > "Once per game at the start of the influence phase, a player may spend > > all his available transfers and pay X pool to move a vampire from his > > uncontrolled region to the ready region, where X is the capacity of > > that vampire. If the vampire already had blood counters on him, those > > are burned. Put X/2 blood counters (rounded up/down?) from the blood > > bank on the vampire." > > > Kind of duplicates the speed effect of Tomb of Rameses III for all > > players regardless of how many transfers a player has. > > > The cost of this could be increased by removing another uncontrolled > > vampire from the game as well... > > Fine effect for a card, but a bit unwieldy for a rule. You mean because players have to remember who has already used his "option"? Players can already keep track of a played Giants Blood quite ok, so there is not really a problem with book-keeping. As a card, it would be kinda obsolete. The main point of the transfers- discussion is about the headstart the weenies have, and how fatties could be made more playable in regard to the time it takes to bring them into the ready region. (Yes I know - weenies have more actions available then fatties. This could only be solved with interesting card options other posters have already mentiond. Therefore for the time being I don't consider that as an important factor to this discussion.) To have an effect in the very first turn, it would have to be a master card (event would be too late). Of course, we already have cards that are desired to be played very early on (Info Highway, Tomb, Zillahs Valley), but with a bad initial draw the situation remains as if those cards weren't included in the deck. I think there needs to be a solution that should not be base on the luck of the draw, but rather a tactical option to all players. If you think the suggested rule itself is unwieldy, perhaps it could be worded better/simpler? Honestly, I think it is not *that* unwieldy. I mean, VTES players had and have to deal with more unwieldy stuff. :) A blanket rule of X additional transfers or even unlimited transfers on turn one seems to be a much more drastic change and gives players of all crypt-sizes the same options, whereas I thought that only the biggies were desired to get a little "push" to balance them against the weenies. Did I get that wrong? ;)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:fulAh.10370$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > Damnans wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >> [...] >>> Voter Cap itself may be the problem. >>> >>> It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain >> >> Not true. Renewed Vigor grants an even easier and more important blood >> gain. > > Far less easy. Requires OBE and an exclusive action. "More important" is > unsupported. "Far less easy"? Do you have to pass a vote by X to gain X blood with Renewed Vigor? Can you play Voter Captivation without taking an action? > It seems unsupportable, to me, but that may be just because no supporting > evidence has been given. > > Different, yes. But not strictly more important (nor strictly less > important). > >> So does Baltimore Purge + Diablerie with multiple actions. > > Less easy. Less controllable. But it is arguable that BP is also > overpowered, yes. > > Bring up cases that you consider "totally broken" doesn't really help the > "isn't overpowered" case, however. So are you going to fix all the other "totally broken" cases soon, too? I don't care about slippery slopes but if you like fixing one thing that you think is too powerful, why would you *not* fix all the other ones? >>> (repeatable, >> >> Same with Renewed Vigor and diablerie actions after a Baltimore Purge. > >>> unblockable, >> >> What do you mean with unblockable? Only actions can be blocked ;-) > > Exactly. Unblockable, instantaneous effect. It's still hyperbole to tar an action modifier with the epithet "unblockable" as part of your argument that it is too powerful. You can say that Conditioning is "unblockable" bleed increase too, but that in itself is no kind of logical argument advancing the notion that Conditioning is too powerful. >> Unless you mean that it cannot be cancelled, countered or prevented >> from being played, which is false. > > So why would you think that's what I meant? Because what you wrote didn't make any sense as an argument, so he was looking for something you might have meant that would make sense? Josh

"Atom Weaver" <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1171343973....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 12, 5:29 pm, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote: >> I vote in favor of you buying! :-) >> > > Does this imply that Mr. Duffin will be there in person for the Beer > Referendum..? I believe this here Lost in Crowds has an excellent chance of getting me through unblocked. :-) Josh letting my cross-table allies voter cap to their heart's content

On Feb 12, 9:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, LSJ wrote: > > >> Darby Keeney wrote: > >>> just > >>> "overpowered" compared to the baseline card population. Altering > >>> cards on that sliding scale of power seems problematic to me. > > >> Note that it's not a sliding scale that Matt is referring to. > >> "Stronger than it should be" is not a sliding metric, unlike > >> "overpowered compared to the current baseline" or "at the top of the > >> power curve for the current set of cards/errata", as you seem to be > >> reading it. > > > Small vampires are stronger than they should be. I've never heard > > anyone refute that statement. Can we get a fix please? If the answer > > is no, then please don't make changes to cards that make large vampires > > viable. > > What fix do you propose?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Suggestion #1: "Any methuselah that uses all of their transfers in a single influence phase to put blood on a vampire may at the end of the influence phase move additional pool as neccessary to complete the influence of that vampire and move it to the ready region" Text might need some cleaning up of course. It does not hurt weenies in that they can still operate as they do now but any deck can get any single minion they have available out in a single turn to defend themselves. It would also assist in recovery from PTO, Banishment, etc. Suggestion #2: "A methuselah may only transfer pool to one uncontrolled minion each turn." Suggestion #3: "Unlimited transfers (or +10 whatever) and A methuselah may only transfer pool to one uncontrolled minion each turn." Or maybe only on first turn? I like #1 as it does not nerf current decks, just enables fatties more. -John P.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:fulAh.10370$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> Damnans wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>> [...] >>>> Voter Cap itself may be the problem. >>>> >>>> It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain >>> Not true. Renewed Vigor grants an even easier and more important blood >>> gain. >> Far less easy. Requires OBE and an exclusive action. "More important" is >> unsupported. > > "Far less easy"? Yes. > Do you have to pass a vote by X to gain X blood with > Renewed Vigor? Can you play Voter Captivation without taking an action? The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was doing *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. > So are you going to fix all the other "totally broken" cases soon, too? I > don't care about slippery slopes but if you like fixing one thing that you > think is too powerful, why would you *not* fix all the other ones? So there are only two options: perfection or status quo?

preac...@gmx.at wrote: > On 13 Feb., 16:35, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> preache...@gmx.at wrote: >>> Additional transfers always have the problem of helping weenie crypts, >>> even though that may not desired. >> Increased options helps every deck, yes. But by helping weenies less than it >> helps non-weenies, the weenies wind up with a net loss of "help". > > Naturally. > >>> How about such an additional rule for the influence phase: >>> "Once per game at the start of the influence phase, a player may spend >>> all his available transfers and pay X pool to move a vampire from his >>> uncontrolled region to the ready region, where X is the capacity of >>> that vampire. If the vampire already had blood counters on him, those >>> are burned. Put X/2 blood counters (rounded up/down?) from the blood >>> bank on the vampire." >>> Kind of duplicates the speed effect of Tomb of Rameses III for all >>> players regardless of how many transfers a player has. >>> The cost of this could be increased by removing another uncontrolled >>> vampire from the game as well... >> Fine effect for a card, but a bit unwieldy for a rule. > > You mean because players have to remember who has already used his > "option"? > Players can already keep track of a played Giants Blood quite ok, so > there is not really a problem with book-keeping. Not, not bookkeeping, just in rules-writing. The rule as presented is too convoluted. Such convolution is OK for a card ("follow card text" is a fine rule), but not so fine for a rule.

On Feb 13, 7:02 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >news:fulAh.10370$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > >> Damnans wrote: > >>> LSJ wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>> Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > >>>> It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain > >>> Not true. Renewed Vigor grants an even easier and more important blood > >>> gain. > >> Far less easy. Requires OBE and an exclusive action. "More important" is > >> unsupported. > > > "Far less easy"? > > Yes. > > > Do you have to pass a vote by X to gain X blood with > > Renewed Vigor? Can you play Voter Captivation without taking an action? > > The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was doing > *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. Is that kind of blood gain good for the game or bad? [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans wrote: > Is that kind of blood gain good for the game or bad? Is game balance good or bad?

[ quoted text not captured ] What's game balance? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:b3nAh.10475$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> "Far less easy"? > > Yes. > >> Do you have to pass a vote by X to gain X blood with Renewed Vigor? Can >> you play Voter Captivation without taking an action? > > The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was doing > *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. No more so than Taste of Vitae, which is disciplineless. The cost of a card - and in this case a discipline - is not "no cost". Nor is it more free than Perfectionist or Capitalist - you're going to take actions anyway, why not gain blood while you're at it? >> So are you going to fix all the other "totally broken" cases soon, too? >> I don't care about slippery slopes but if you like fixing one thing that >> you think is too powerful, why would you *not* fix all the other ones? > > So there are only two options: perfection or status quo? There are two main options to one's *approach* to game balance: attempting to achieve perfection (or at least come close to it), or conservatism (sticking with the status quo except in extreme cases). If you are going to attempt to achieve perfection, you should do so in many cases, not just a few. Josh

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:b3nAh.10475$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> Joshua Duffin wrote: > >>> "Far less easy"? >> Yes. >> >>> Do you have to pass a vote by X to gain X blood with Renewed Vigor? Can >>> you play Voter Captivation without taking an action? >> The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was doing >> *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. > > No more so than Taste of Vitae, which is disciplineless. The cost of a Yes, more so, as has been covered already. > card - and in this case a discipline - is not "no cost". Nor is it more > free than Perfectionist or Capitalist - you're going to take actions anyway, > why not gain blood while you're at it? It is moreso than those. See also master phase actions. And '1'. The strength players find in Perfectionist, despite its shortcomings compared to Voter Captivation, is another case in the evidence column. >>> So are you going to fix all the other "totally broken" cases soon, too? >>> I don't care about slippery slopes but if you like fixing one thing that >>> you think is too powerful, why would you *not* fix all the other ones? >> So there are only two options: perfection or status quo? > > There are two main options to one's *approach* to game balance: attempting > to achieve perfection (or at least come close to it), or conservatism > (sticking with the status quo except in extreme cases). If you are going to > attempt to achieve perfection, you should do so in many cases, not just a > few. You might want to check with Zopf about that.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:XW0Ah.43747$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net: > bluedevil wrote: >> 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase >> to see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of >> their current advantages. > > This, as I've said before, still seems like overkill (changing the > mid-game and end-game instead of just the opening). > > Some other options (some of which have been forward already): > > a) Unlimited transfers on each Methuselah's first turn, but restricted > to "move pool to an uncontrolled vampire". > > b) Ten additional transfers on first turn (no restrictions on use). > > This could also be seen as a time-saver, as well (cutting down on game > length), so would be appropriate for a V:EKN floor rule (since time > limits are also a V:EKN floor rule addition) instead of being an > adjustment to the base rules themselves. > > Other comments? > Has anyone suggested or considered something insane, like the following? A Crypt card which functions to accelerate transfers to another crypt card via a master mechanism. I'm thinking of a genuine brown backed crypt card which, instead of minion text on it, had a game function like; "remove this card from the game as a master phase action to gain four transfers in the next influence phase." THhe drawback of any library based solutions to big minion acceleration is that it must be incorporated in sufficient numbers so as to guarantee a draw in or near the game's opening, but those cards (ZIllah's Valley) are more useless as the game goes on, because you have sufficient influence by then. The crypt (being smaller) can be selected so as to ensure the opening draw much more reliably. It doens't make any sense thematically, but mechanically it makes sense that things which need to show up reliably early would reside there, instead of in the library... But I'm just nuts this week, anyways... DZ AW

On Feb 13, 1:00 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <5e5zh.17093$ji1.16...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > > <vtes...@white-wolf.com> writes: > >I'm using objective data -- comparisons to other cards (and the > >subjective judgment that free blood/pool is good for a deck's ability > >to win). > > This proves that a card is better than another. > > Please show how you go from VC being better than some other cards to VC > being overpowered. This is what you are not showing, or even attempting > to explain. > Let's see if I can have a try... Forgive me if I repeat a little bit. Voter Captivation, as far as I can tell, has too much effect for a single card. If it was just blood gain as an action modifier, that's still a bit much. Pool gain as well is tending towards crazy. Art Scam is 2 pool as an action. Sure, it may take a little bit more to get a vote through. Perhaps one additional card. Art Scam will need an action plus possibly some stealth. VC will need an action (a vote, that is also damaging to your prey, and is "what your deck does", so we don't count it as the additional card, because it accomplishes other purposes besides gaining the pool), possibly some stealth, and possibly a Bewitching Oration or an Awe. There, you've gained 2 pool, plus possibly some blood, while not wasting an action because you also did what your deck is designed to do. There are so many other cards and actions to compare it to, but most of them have already been visited and you're still not convinced. I understand that. The other thing about Voter Captivation is that it has a profound, and I emphasize profound, impact on the viability of vote decks. You almost can't play a winning vote deck without VC... okay, don't go into Lasombra voters/bleeders with Political Structure, etc... they exist, but nearly to the degree of VC-supported vote. A good vote deck with Voter Captivation, if not stopped early, will bloat like crazy, using multiple minion taps, blood and pool from VC, bringing out more vampires with votes with the extra pool, Minion Tapping and Voter Capping with those minions, etc... It's a hideous cycle, all fed by actions that still damage your prey at the same time. Admit it, you've known the horror of watching a nasty vote deck bloating and gearing up cross table with nothing you can do about it, right? Admittedly, those decks don't utterly dominate the tournament scene, but when they work, it is in HUGE part because of Voter Cap. And when they do work, using VC, they're like a big cheesy boulder rolling down a slick, buttery hillside... damn, I'm getting hungry. But, my point is, these decks seem to start off in a very unstable equilibrium, ready to push off to an early exit, or to a table sweeping at any moment. And Voter Cap is the pressure pushing toward the table sweep. *That* is why it is too powerful. I don't think you're convinced, but I'll go on as though you are... I don't think anyone has read any of my posts in this thread, but early on, I mentioned that I wasn't sure Voter Cap needed to be changed. But *something* should be done to balance its effect on the game, because its effect is a bad one. In addition to being too powerful, it also can make referendums excruciatingly annoying when people have to balance their votes against a VC. And it can be annoying even for political decks that don't use VC (as rare as those are), because people will vote against you so you don't gain pool, and then someone else will pull some surprise vote push to vote it down. Obviously if Voter Cap were to be changed, there would have to be some other force (or several forces) to push vote decks toward viability. Because you guys are right that vote decks do have some costs associated with them - big vampires, little stealth, table politics, vote hosers... And Voter Cap is the crutch that offsets some of those costs, and pretty much completely reverses the cost of having large vamps. Or if Voter Cap is not changed, there have to be some viable VC-hosers that are not also vote hosers (because why hose other voters that don't even use the overpowered card?). Ideally, regardless of what happens, there should be some more vote options for non-presence disciplines, but that's more of a tangential thing, and not so much part of the VC discussion.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:23oAh.11304$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> There are two main options to one's *approach* to game balance: >> attempting to achieve perfection (or at least come close to it), or >> conservatism (sticking with the status quo except in extreme cases). >> If you are going to attempt to achieve perfection, you should do so >> in many cases, not just a few. > > You might want to check with Zopf about that. > Who, me? o:-) I don't actually think so. I wasn't looking at the changes in terms of game balance with my prior comments, but rather the cumulative burden that card text changes put on new players (not related to game balance, but rather the promotion of the game as a hobby/interest). I'll put it this way; If the "perfect" version of VTES involves card text changes to 500 different cards, you might as well not change a single one, because no new player will be patient enough to learn all of those changes. Contrary to my expectations when text re-writes first began to appear, they continue to add a not-insignificant burden of entry to new player's, since they will inevitably play against older players with older cards. Its a separate consideration about the game that should be considered. Bit it doesn't really have much to do with Josh's arguments about game balance. Thanks for reading them, though... DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] The point being that changing VC (assuming VC is overpowered enough to warrant being changed itself) doesn't necessarily mean that "many" (Duffin's word) or "500" (your words) cards (which are not in and of themselves overpowered enough to warrant being changed individually) should also be dragged into the change machine in the name of perfection.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:zNoAh.11932$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> news:23oAh.11304$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: >> >> >> Who, me? o:-) I don't actually think so. I wasn't looking at the >> changes in terms of game balance with my prior comments, but rather >> the cumulative burden that card text changes put on new players (not >> related to game balance, but rather the promotion of the game as a >> hobby/interest). >> >> I'll put it this way; If the "perfect" version of VTES involves card >> text changes to 500 different cards, you might as well not change a >> single one, because no new player will be patient enough to learn >> all of those changes. Contrary to my expectations when text >> re-writes first began to appear, they continue to add a >> not-insignificant burden of entry to new player's, since they will >> inevitably play against older players with older cards. >> >> Its a separate consideration about the game that should be >> considered. Bit it doesn't really have much to do with Josh's >> arguments about game balance. >> >> Thanks for reading them, though... > > The point being that changing VC (assuming VC is overpowered enough to > warrant being changed itself) doesn't necessarily mean that "many" > (Duffin's word) or "500" (your words) cards (which are not in and of > themselves overpowered enough to warrant being changed individually) > should also be dragged into the change machine in the name of > perfection. > OK, understood. For the record, my number isn't actually "500" which I picked arbitrarily to make the point. I am finding the current 216 re-writes to be _already_ a significant burden/nuisance for potential new players. Under the current circumstances, I don't think the number of re-writes should go up. DZ AW

On Feb 5, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap. > > > So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around? > > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the > number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2. > [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4. > > Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum). > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > Only usable after resolving a successful referendum. > [pre] Gain 2 blood. > [PRE] Gain 2 pool. > > The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently fizzles on. I think the argument- and timeout-related issues that voter cap can bring to a table are mitigated best by this last option. As much as i like to abuse voter cap, i liken it to abuse mentally, and the fact that PRE is nigh-mandatory in tournament-worthy big-cap vote-decks is a testament to the strength of the card. I'd prefer the template on the last card-option submitted above, but, pre: gain 2 blood PRE: gain 4 blood That is all. Merlin

On Feb 13, 2:53 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote innews:GijAh.10353$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > > > > > atomweaver wrote: > >> andrea.la.ma...@infinito.it wrote in news:1171328469.262655.219320 [ quoted text not captured ] Note that a partial solution like mine would not touch the value of accelerators (info highway to wake an 8 cap in one turn or zillah for a 10 cap) and does not subvert the game from what is now (assuming ulimited transfer does that) as is nothing more than a toned down info highway for mid to high cap for everybody. and weenie deck have NO advantage from something like this. Andrea

bluedevil wrote: [transfer options] > But honestly, part of the appeal of unlimited vs. your suggestions to > me is simplicity. That rates very highly in my book when it comes to > game design. the side effect of obsolete-ing a bunch of cards rates it fairly low in my books, though. :( (more so than the simplicity rating it higher, which i also agree with. simple is good) -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

> > > > Question: Is Voter Captivation really that dominant in a competitive > > environment? > [...] > > So the perception of "overpoweredness" most come from something other > > than the competitive environment. > > Yes. See my initial post. Bloat, both in blood and pool, as needed, is, > inherently, strong. The easier the bloat, the stronger it is. VC bloat is ease > personified. Namely: do nothing extra, just play the card whenever your deck is > working at all. First let me state that this issue is understood and well taken on my part. That said, a Meth w/five 2 cap Sabbatt with Parthanon and Hungry Coyote plays 2 Tribute to the Master gains 10 pool. And if successful hunts to full cap in the same turn. Ok, clearly in this example the Meth has gone above the "do nothing extra" and has some set up. My point being is that this setup can come pretty easy, and at the end of the day I have 5 blockers/minons. If I bring up Arika I've spent 11 pool (yes I know she's worth it) and I only have one blocker/minon. FD aside Im getting one action. It seems like here we go again, the big bloatable(?) minons get their power neutered because they have a high Tappable cap. YES! I said it! I'm gonna be the big bad here and say it! It killed my favorite card in the game, 5th Tradition! And now it threatons the demise of VC. Evil has a name and it is MINON TAP!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! You can't bloat pool if you can't tap. No one cares about Tapping a weenie, but the card(s) in question are not overpowered based on the spent Cap of the minion unless you factor in Minon Tap. Same goes with 5th Trad. I currently bloat Arika w/ Renewed Vigor. That card like the others are not even a topic of conversation without MT. I can regularly bloat that deck to 30-50 pool. Ask yourself which card REALLY makes that happen. Will Renewed Vigor be next! What is the cost/ benifit of playing Minion Tap? I tend to like to play bigger vampires, thats my style. I need ALL of my current game mechanics to stay on pace with the low cost swarm of small vampires. In making any changes in the game I only ask that the ballance of Big Bloat vs. Weenie Swarm be considered in these decsions, as both are regulary played in tournament enviroments. My 2cents ***JediMike***

On Feb 12, 4:56 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 6:12 pm, "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Analysis: I did a quick word search on Lasombra's TWDA, with the > > following results for occurrences of the following phrases: > > > Blood Doll 503 > > Minion Tap 230 > > Govern the Unaligned 188 > > Majesty 160 > > Kine Resources Contested 134 > > Taste of Vitae 120 > > Freak Drive 118 > > Voter Captivation 86 > > Kindred Spirits 45 > > Perfectionist 36 > > Hmm. I wrote a fairly detailed PERL script to parse the whole TWDA > for card frequencies, and here are the top cards: > 1815 blood doll > 1538 wake with evening's freshness > 1439 deflection > 1109 govern the unaligned > 1056 kine resources contested > 1041 forced awakening > 972 telepathic misdirection > 965 majesty > 754 lost in crowds > 687 second tradition: domain, the > 651 cloak the gathering > 609 freak drive > 592 immortal grapple > 591 conditioning > 564 taste of vitae > 509 carrion crows > 495 swallowed by the night > 450 sudden reversal > 442 faceless night > 439 obedience > 434 torn signpost > 421 voter captivation > > I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, but it's close. Of course, the above > numbers are from the beginning of the TWDA, dating back to 1997. I > ran the numbers starting from 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and > 2006. I put the top 50 in an excel doc and posted it here (link to my > personal website):http://tinyurl.com/3cscuj > > I'm not sure what this shows exactly about the power level of voter > cap, but it's definitely not the most popular card for tournament > winning decks. > > Ira Interesting, Minion Tap is not even listed in the top. Nice Stat Analyisis Ira! ***JediMike***

On Feb 12, 10:58 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> writes: > >Those who don't wish to participate in a constructive discussion are > >free not to, of course. > > How is it constructive to assert that VC is over-powered without > providing evidence to support that assertion, other than "look at every > tournament it's played in"? :-( > > Since, clearly, the rest of us have seen it played in many tournaments, > that we're not seeing the same thing as you is apparent. Yet you just > say "look at any tournament it's been played in." I agree with James that LSJ's actual "evidence" hasn't been constructive nor convincing. That said, I don't think there's any way to give solid evidence that voter cap is so powerful that the game would improve if it were changed. Instead of giving a bogus answer like, "look at any tournament it's been played in," I think most players would prefer that you just admit that it's simply your judgment. I can accept an answer like that much better than a bogus answer of "look at all tournaments it's been played in." Considering how well your judgment as served this game so far, I'm happy to continue relying on it. Especially when you invite player feedback (as you've done) to gather as much information as possible before making your decision. Ira

On Feb 13, 1:11 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > bluedevil wrote: > > But honestly, part of the appeal of unlimited vs. your suggestions to > > me is simplicity. That rates very highly in my book when it comes to > > game design. > > the side effect of obsolete-ing a bunch of cards rates it fairly low in > my books, though. :( (more so than the simplicity rating it higher, > which i also agree with. simple is good) Simple is very important. Speeding up how long the game takes is also a huge benefit. Obsoleting some old cards?! How many cards are we talking about, really? Ingrid Rossler and Tarbaby Jack would still be playable. Anything that gives you blood on uncontrolled would still be playable (govern, scouting, enchant, etc.) Dreams is still in. Info Highway and Zillah's Valley are definitely out. Tomb of Ramses III is probably out, but that's not a big change. I'm sure I'm missing some cards, but it doesn't wallpaper that many, does it? If unlimited transfers are used, perhaps it would cost 2 pool to decrypt instead of just 1. Ira

On Feb 13, 4:11 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > the side effect of obsolete-ing a bunch of cards rates it fairly low in > my books, though. :( (more so than the simplicity rating it higher, > which i also agree with. simple is good) It obsoletes the master cards that the big caps shouldn't be saddled with playing anyway. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

In message <_BiAh.10352$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <40_yh.17021$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ >> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >>> ben...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> What do we do to determine "overpoweredness" (card balance)? How >>>> much more than another card must a card do in order for it to be >>>> "overpowered"? >>> If you have an answer, please let me know. Otherwise, it falls to >>> judgment, obviously. >> Please provide some of the evidence that informs your opinion. >See my first post. Your first post clearly demonstrates that it is more powerful than some other cards. It shows nothing to even begin to demonstrate that it is overpowered. As others have pointed out, at least one of the cards you have been comparing it with is considered on the weak side these days by many players, which doesn't help your argument's credibility. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1171372808....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> writes: >On Feb 13, 2:15 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > ><snip weenies still have it better> > >I think it is intentional (well, for me it is) that weenie decks still >have it better under the proposed system. It's not that weenie decks have it better. It's that it seems that weenie decks have it *even* better. I don't mind weenie decks being a strong archetype - I think have a variety of strong archetypes for the game is a positive thing, be it fatties, star vampires, weenies, breed decks, whatever. But making a strong archetype even stronger seems awkward. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <eqsdq5$chn$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >Such as (and it is just a very quick example, nothing very refined): > >"Size does matter", Action >Only usable by an untitled vampire with a capacity over 7. Enter combat >with a younger vampire as a (D) action. Untap after the action, even if >it is blocked. As a mechanic, that gets slightly awkward if applied to too many cards, because it ends up with theoretically a LOT of actions. You might want to, say, define a trait such that you could put that card on the vampire and limit the number they have. That way, such cards are generally not quite as flexible as Freak Drive or Rutor's Hand, but still pretty good. It might be annoying if people combine the two, however - Size Does Matter, act again, freak, act again etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1171387195.3...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, John P. <verg...@hotmail.com> writes: >I like #1 as it does not nerf current decks, just enables fatties >more. In terms of helping the medicine go down, I agree that it would probably be useful for any change to be a new thing for decks to do rather than limiting something that existing decks can do. Penalising existing decks outright is more likely to annoy people. [ quoted text not captured ]

i like this influence discussion. let me say how i'd like it to read (and it could be an optional VEKN rule): (regular influence rules) AND *first 2 turns a Meth has (2 full table rounds) he or she may have unlimited transfers only to transfer to and bring out 1 vampire/minion* that way a weenie player who goes first gets neither benefit. they already will catch up fast enough anyways, so not a big loss. also, those extra influence type cards will still retain value in a variety of decks. also, its KISS, which is crucial to prevent eyestrain for all. i'd also like to offer a very naughty and evil suggestion, along the lines of Temptation. i think that just because Meths influence doesn't mean larger vampires don't. i think it might be interesting to explore a new rule power for vampires 7+ capacity. how about this: Vampires with capacity of 7 or more can take temporary control of a vampire with a capacity of 2 or less. During the untap phase, the older vampire gives blood to the target equal to its capacity (excess blood goes to the blood bank, as normal) and takes control of this younger vampire until the end of this turn. A vampire may do this more than once per untap phase. FYI: do not try to add tapping to the cost! the goal is to simply take advantage of weenies ability to be easily bribed, used as pawns, in general vampire politics. otherwise it'd be trading a big cap action for a weenie action -- which equals waste of time! Temptation and Mind Rape would still be solid because they'd be cheaper, last longer, or reach larger targets. also, it would bring greater risk to playing weenies because they would be easily manipulated by others, including your predator. i don't know the full ramifications yet, but it's an interesting start. also, because control is lost at the end of turn, if you oust your weenie prey with his own weenies, those weenies will burn after your turn ends, as per usual. this way you don't have to worry about some bloating big cap player sweeping up all the weenies into some 30+ weenie end game army. there's quite a few benefits to this method, i think...

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > THhe drawback of any library based solutions to big minion acceleration is > that it must be incorporated in sufficient numbers so as to guarantee a > draw in or near the game's opening, but those cards (ZIllah's Valley) are > more useless as the game goes on, because you have sufficient influence by > then. Looking at the source material from which this game is derived, one of the reasons why older vampires are more effective than younger ones is because of their efficiency: while a younger vampire can typically burn 1 blood per turn in the RPG, an elder can burn up to 3 blood per turn, all used to power disciplines or pump strength, heal, whatever. I'm not sure if I have suggested this here before or not, but here goes (again, maybe): Arbitrary Card Name Unique Master 2 pool Put this card in play. Once per turn, after performing a successful action, any vampire with a capacity greater than 7 may burn 1 blood to untap at the end of the turn. This card may be burned by any vampire with capacity above 7 as a (D) action. (Could also be printed as an event, I guess) So, basically a semi-permanent Mother of Horrors effect, allowing large vampires (all at the table) to become more efficient while the card is in play. I figure there've been enough untap effects added to the game lately that haven't broken the game that we could afford to add one more. Although any player using large vampires will likely be packing a copy of the proposed card, they might not want to be the first one to play it. Better to wait for someone else to play it, thus making them pay the 2 pool, while still reaping the benefits yourself. On the other hand, the more decks featuring large vampires at the table, the more likely this card will be played sooner rather than later. Note also that the card does not adversely affect weenie decks directly; they just don't benefit from it. Cheers, WES

On Feb 9, 8:19 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1171033884.474013.263...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > >Ok, maybe Fifth Tradition is not played because VC is so much better > >than it for getting blood back on your voters - which could be a > >further argument for fixing VC - but the point is still valid (that > >is, wallpaperizing VC would be worse than not changing it at all). > > Just as a second data point, a number of UK players have, in the past, > discussed their unhappiness with Fifth Tradition with me. They could > see that the original was very powerful, but felt that the rewritten > version was just a little too weak. I believe it was Rob Treasure, way > back when, who said he'd still consider it for inclusion in appropriate > decks if it was 5 blood, but the 3 blood benefit (-1 + 4) didn't seem > quite good enough. > > It's not unplayable by any stretch, but it seems to lack... something. Definately. I havent seen anyone play Fifth Traditions since the card was nerfed. Contrast the dramatic change to Fifth Tradition with the change to Second Tradition which was a very good and very balanced change. Gaining one more blood would make all the difference in value for that card, and at least make it a little better than Restoration (another card that is rarely used, but that is far more useable given that its easier to make decks with vamps that all have fortitude than decks in which all the vampires are princes or justicars). Regarding voter cap: I dont think that card needs to be changed, and there have been many good arguments against said change on this thread. It is actually quite hard to pull off, and to use it to consistently gain pool the entire deck has to be geared around it (ie. play high capacity vamps, play many minion taps, increase numbers of voter caps to ensure you can get one often, add more vote modifiers to ensure your votes can pass and voter cap can work to maximum effect, add stealth to guarantee blockers wont cause your hand to jam with the action mods you have to play, etc). For 12 years I have never considered voter cap to be a problem but rather an integral part of the game. Thalles

On Feb 14, 4:49 am, lysande...@excite.com wrote: > On Feb 9, 8:19 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > In message <1171033884.474013.263...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > >Ok, maybe Fifth Tradition is not played because VC is so much better > > >than it for getting blood back on your voters - which could be a > > >further argument for fixing VC - but the point is still valid (that > > >is, wallpaperizing VC would be worse than not changing it at all). > > > Just as a second data point, a number of UK players have, in the past, > > discussed their unhappiness with Fifth Tradition with me. They could > > see that the original was very powerful, but felt that the rewritten > > version was just a little too weak. I believe it was Rob Treasure, way > > back when, who said he'd still consider it for inclusion in appropriate > > decks if it was 5 blood, but the 3 blood benefit (-1 + 4) didn't seem > > quite good enough. > > > It's not unplayable by any stretch, but it seems to lack... something. > > Definately. I havent seen anyone play Fifth Traditions since the card > was nerfed. Contrast the dramatic change to Fifth Tradition with the > change to Second Tradition which was a very good and very balanced > change. Gaining one more blood would make all the difference in value > for that card, and at least make it a little better than Restoration > (another card that is rarely used, but that is far more useable given > that its easier to make decks with vamps that all have fortitude than > decks in which all the vampires are princes or justicars). I *do* see Fifth Tradition reasonably often, mostly in Nosferatu royalty type decks. Where Voter Captivation isn't typically available. Go figure. It's also the only deck archetype where I usually see Fourth Tradition (because Govern isn't available). witness1 -believe the lie

On Feb 13, 7:08 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > It's not that weenie decks have it better. It's that it seems that > weenie decks have it *even* better. Let me see if I understood your argument correctly. Weenies come out faster, and so cycle cards faster. But they already came out *massively* faster than fatties, and so *massively* cycled better. Now they are (plucks number out of thin air) 10% faster, cycling 10% better. Weenies improve a little, and fatties improve a whole friggin' lot. Relatively, I fail to see how they are being made stronger. I really don't put much stock in your hypothetical scenario of the screaming weenie dominate deck. Perhaps if you had mentioned the word "Wake" just once on the fatty deck's side I would have found it more persuasive.

[ quoted text not captured ] Jezus. Transcript: G: I think this kind of bloodgain isn't bad for the game. Please explain why you think it is. S: I think it negatively affects game balance. G: I think it doesn't. Please explain why you think so. Cheers, B

bluedevil schrieb: > Let me see if I understood your argument correctly. Weenies come out > faster, and so cycle cards faster. But they already came out > *massively* faster than fatties, and so *massively* cycled better. > Now they are (plucks number out of thin air) 10% faster, cycling 10% > better. Weenies improve a little, and fatties improve a whole > friggin' lot. Relatively, I fail to see how they are being made > stronger. It愀 not only about how fast the vampires come out. Fattie deck usually take 2-3 turns to really kick into gears even after they have 1-2 vampires. Additionally fattie decks cannot afford/risk to put out more than 1-2 vampires before their deck gets really going because that puts them too low on pool. Weenie decks can easily put out 6 vamps w/o being in danger of being ousted. > I really don't put much stock in your hypothetical scenario of the > screaming weenie dominate deck. Perhaps if you had mentioned the word > "Wake" just once on the fatty deck's side I would have found it more > persuasive. Wake. But one or even two will not be enough.

On Feb 12, 7:52 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > At this point, the hypothesis that Voter Captivation is stronger than it > should be does not appear very well supported by the evidence at hand. More > evidence that it is, in fact, too strong should be presented before taking > action to reduce its strength. > > Josh > > no witty sig today Granted I have not read EVERY post to this thread, but I can't quite ascertain if the problem with VC is: A) the fact a large vampire can fill up? B) in PRE you can gain 2 pool? C) all that newly aquired Blood can be converted into Pool? D) All the above? If it's A. Renewed Vigor does the same thing. Will this be next to consider? (just asking) If it's B. you must push votes and have PRE. Strong, but overpowered???? Not sold. If it's C. then again I assert that Minon Tap is the criminal here. VC is mearly the conduit to bloats end. But so is RV and old 5th. If it's D. then I really don't know how A&B can even touch C. I understand it's a design issue as well, but again, is that because of the strengh MT gives to VC. Or is it that Awe lets you basicly auto pass your vote to fill again, rinse and repeat. Don't get me wrong, I love my MT and I don't want that banned either, however, I'm having a difficult time placing my finger on the EXACT problem (if any) here. ***JediMike***

On Feb 14, 10:53 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > It´s not only about how fast the vampires come out. Fattie deck usually > take 2-3 turns to really kick into gears even after they have 1-2 > vampires. Really? I'm Arika. Govern - freak - Scout - freak (just gained 5, how much did you bleed for?) - bleed for a bazillion - freak - call Domain Challenge/Ancient Influence/KRC/something good - freak. I bounce you and Obey you and Majesty against you, because I have piles of that in my deck. Aren't these examples fun? > Additionally fattie decks cannot afford/risk to put out more > than 1-2 vampires before their deck gets really going because that puts > them too low on pool. Which is why they play things like Wakes, Second Traditions, and such. > Weenie decks can easily put out 6 vamps w/o being > in danger of being ousted. Yes, but not on turn one, not even under the new system. And -- this is something I feel is getting completely glossed over in the armchair analysis -- they have predators of their own, too. This is where I say give it a whirl before you write the whole thing off as broken. > Wake. > But one or even two will not be enough. That sounds almost psychic to me. Noted.

On Feb 13, 3:20 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > That said, I don't think there's any way to give solid evidence that > voter cap is so powerful that the game would improve if it were > changed. Now, there is a voice of reason. I agree wholeheartedly -- it is foolhardy to look for "proof" for game design concepts like these. Furthermore, jumping up and down and insisting that you be presented with evidence to "prove" something that is so completely abstract and judgement-laden demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the complexity of the problem. Let's look at a different, but perhaps equally complex issue, by way of comparison. Can you "prove" that automobile exhaust and/or factory emissions are the primary causes of global warming? No, you can't (as the years of continuing debate have demonstrated), but that doesn't mean that you can't make a judgement call and take action to reduce emissions that clearly are having an impact. Or, conclude the other way, for that matter, and continue to do as you will. This, I think, is one reason behind LSJ's response that asks the folks stomping their feet for "proof" to demonstrate the proof they have for the "nope, it's not overpowered at all" side of the discussion. Said proof has been equally un-forthcoming, equally un-proof-worthy, so until you can do the impossible and "prove" that it isn't overpowered, doesn't it seem rather brash to command others to do what you cannot? > Considering how well your judgment as served this game so far, I'm > happy to continue relying on it. Especially when you invite player > feedback (as you've done) to gather as much information as possible > before making your decision. Huzzah! -Jason

On Feb 14, 11:35 am, "***JediMike***" <jedispa...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Granted I have not read EVERY post to this thread, but I can't quite > ascertain if the problem with VC is: > > A) the fact a large vampire can fill up? > B) in PRE you can gain 2 pool? > C) all that newly aquired Blood can be converted into Pool? > D) All the above? I'd say it's E: All of the above, at no opportunity cost in terms of extra actions, moving parts, or other such things on top of what your deck is already needing to do in order to pursue its usual goal of ousting your prey, ie pass whatever vote you wanted to pass anyway. - D.J.

On Feb 14, 11:35 am, "***JediMike***" <jedispa...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Feb 12, 7:52 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > At this point, the hypothesis that Voter Captivation is stronger than it > > should be does not appear very well supported by the evidence at hand. More > > evidence that it is, in fact, too strong should be presented before taking > > action to reduce its strength. > > > Josh > > > no witty sig today > > Granted I have not read EVERY post to this thread, but I can't quite > ascertain if the problem with VC is: > > A) the fact a large vampire can fill up? > B) in PRE you can gain 2 pool? > C) all that newly aquired Blood can be converted into Pool? > D) All the above? > > If it's A. Renewed Vigor does the same thing. Will this be next to > consider? (just asking) Renewed Vigor costs an action. VC is tacked onto another action, which could itself be gaining blood or pool or causing damage to your prey. OBE is a scarce Bloodlines discipline. PRE is neither bloodline nor scarce. > If it's B. you must push votes and have PRE. Strong, but > overpowered???? Not sold. A and B together. Now it's done my Renewed Vigor effect plus two pool and not cost me a separate action. > If it's C. then again I assert that Minon Tap is the criminal here. > VC is mearly the conduit to bloats end. But so is RV and old 5th. Again, Fifth got fixed and RV requires a scarce bloodlines discipline at superior. > If it's D. then I really don't know how A&B can even touch C. > > I understand it's a design issue as well, but again, is that because > of the strengh MT gives to VC. Or is it that Awe lets you basicly auto > pass your vote to fill again, rinse and repeat. Or the strength VC gives to MT and Awe. Neither MT nor Awe are problematic on their own. You could say that VC isn't problematic on its own either, but the game is structured around spending blood to pay for cards and heal damage. It's one of the basic premises of the game. So cards that cost a lot of blood for a large advantage don't strike me as unreasonable in that framework. But cards that give you an arbitrary amount of blood back are problematic. You could take away the cards that cost or move blood instead, but then we wouldn't really be playing the same game anymore. > Don't get me wrong, I love my MT and I don't want that banned either, > however, I'm having a difficult time placing my finger on the EXACT > problem (if any) here. Massive amounts of blood gain cause issues, because one of the basic premises of the game is that powerful effects cost blood. It's significantly less problematic when it costs you forward momentum (i.e., Renewed Vigor, Fifth Tradition) or is intensely limited (Giant's Blood). It's not even been so bad on VC that the game has been destroyed by it. But it does cause problems. > ***JediMike*** witness1 -believe the lie.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:23oAh.11304$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>> The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was doing >>> *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. >> >> No more so than Taste of Vitae, which is disciplineless. The cost of a > > Yes, more so, as has been covered already. As has been *asserted* already. I don't see any posts where it was convincingly demonstrated. Your arguments for Taste of Vitae being less problematic than Voter Captivation appear to me to rest on Taste not "negating" the cost of combat cards the way Voter Cap does the cost of political actions/modifiers/etc (though that's your claim, not mine). That's a card-design consideration, not a game-balance consideration, and does not demonstrate that Taste of Vitae's blood gain is "less free" than that from Voter Captivation. >> card - and in this case a discipline - is not "no cost". Nor is it more >> free than Perfectionist or Capitalist - you're going to take actions >> anyway, why not gain blood while you're at it? > > It is moreso than those. See also master phase actions. And '1'. No, those are equally free (cost a cardslot and the opportunity to play the card), though you are correct that they don't grant as much blood immediately when played. They may grant as much over the course of a game, though, and do *not* rely on your deck succeeding in its task to give the free blood (you just have to take successful actions for the archetypes, you don't have to pass votes by X over the possible objections of other players). > The strength players find in Perfectionist, despite its shortcomings > compared to Voter Captivation, is another case in the evidence column. I'm sorry, it's really not. Players use Perfectionist because it's a good effect; they use Voter Captivation because it's a good effect too. Its relative shortcomings can't plausibly be counted as evidence against Voter Captivation because it also has relative strengths, namely that it can be used in any deck regardless of whether that deck can pass votes by X or has Presence - those are very large relative advantages for Perfectionist getting chosen in a lot of deck designs. You can only count players' use of Perfectionist as evidence for Voter Captivation being too strong if you can show that Voter Captivation is too much stronger than Perfectionist - you have not yet even shown that it's stronger at all (in the general case of designing decks that might want to use one or the other of the two cards), let alone too much stronger. >>>> So are you going to fix all the other "totally broken" cases soon, too? >>>> I don't care about slippery slopes but if you like fixing one thing >>>> that you think is too powerful, why would you *not* fix all the other >>>> ones? >> >>> So there are only two options: perfection or status quo? >> >> There are two main options to one's *approach* to game balance: >> attempting to achieve perfection (or at least come close to it), or >> conservatism (sticking with the status quo except in extreme cases). If >> you are going to attempt to achieve perfection, you should do so in many >> cases, not just a few. > > You might want to check with Zopf about that. I'm not sure what objection you are making to my points on how a designer may approach game balance by pointing to Mr. Zopf here. If you're arguing against that claim, would you mind putting forth an actual argument against it? It's difficult for me to psychically guess what I need to convince you of. :-) As far as I can see, there is a real cost to players every time a card text is changed. It should not be done lightly. However, if one is going to take the other approach to designing the game, logically one ought to aim for greater perfection in all of the game's cards, not just a few at a time. Josh not the end of predictable waves of historicity

"paladin_brand" <jason.van...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1171474136....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 13, 3:20 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That said, I don't think there's any way to give solid evidence that >> voter cap is so powerful that the game would improve if it were >> changed. > > Now, there is a voice of reason. I agree wholeheartedly -- it is > foolhardy to look for "proof" for game design concepts like these. > Please, don't equate "proof" with "evidence". People were asking for the latter, not the former... > Furthermore, jumping up and down and insisting that you be presented > with evidence to "prove" something that is so completely abstract and > judgement-laden demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the > complexity of the problem. > Does it? I'm not so sure. It seems that the consequence of a VC which is overpowered enough to warrant changing would be somewhat apparent in tournament results (ie. there'd be evidence). The only things anyone came up with in this thread towards that end was Peter citing 6 vote-centric decks winning in the last 20 tournaments in the TWDA, and the script which collected the instances of use of cards. If I'm looking at the same decks as Peter, they are a Guruhi Deck (no VC) an Ishtarri/ Obf-Pre Sabbat deck (8 VC) a !Nos KRC deck (no VC) a lean IC/Maris/Huiti vote deck (no VC) a Sha-Ennu/Malgorzata (no VC) Can't find the sixth which he is calling a "vote" deck. A couple of others have 1-4 political actions (usually parity shifts), but no VC there, either... Thats not conclusive evidence, but its the sort of analysis that is helpful. > Let's look at a different, but perhaps equally complex issue, by way > of comparison. I don't like analogies. Can't we just talk about the topic at hand? > Can you "prove" that automobile exhaust and/or factory > emissions are the primary causes of global warming? No, you can't Sure, but you can amass enough evidence such that it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent"* http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf > (as the years of continuing debate have demonstrated), Political debate != lack of Scientific concensus > but that doesn't > mean that you can't make a judgement call and take action to reduce > emissions that clearly are having an impact. Or, conclude the other > way, for that matter, and continue to do as you will. > > This, I think, is one reason behind LSJ's response that asks the folks > stomping their feet for "proof" to demonstrate the proof they have for > the "nope, it's not overpowered at all" side of the discussion. Said > proof has been equally un-forthcoming, equally un-proof-worthy, so > until you can do the impossible and "prove" that it isn't overpowered, > doesn't it seem rather brash to command others to do what you cannot? > "Proof", in the manner in which you're using it here, is for mathematics and philosophical exercises in logic, not science, and not games. But where you are wrong in your analogy is that "proof" is not what is being asked for. If someone asserts "VC is overpowered" and another says "prove it", or "show me", what they're really asking for is evidence for the assertion. Evidence is what we use to inform our decisions, and if there is enough of it, we can change our minds on VC (or Global Warming). If VC is overpowered, it would stand to reason that you could check for the consequences of its being overpowered. One check would be that overpowered cards tend to be noticed by the talented players worldwide, leveraged for tournament wins, and thus show a unbalanced presence in the TWDA, or if it were overpowered in a manner which was disruptive, one would expect that people would vocalize aobut the need to include special defenses in planning for opponent's use of the card. Thus far, there is no evidence for VC being overpowered, in terms of high tournament win results, or in terms of a need for special defense. There could be other checks (tests) which would provide evidence that VC is overpowered, but those are the only two which come to mind right now. DaveZ Atom Weaver ...thinks this thread should maybe move over to talk origins, ughn. *Lookit me!! I quoted Stephen J Gould on Usenet.

On Feb 14, 1:19 pm, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:23oAh.11304$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > >>> The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was doing > >>> *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. > > >> No more so than Taste of Vitae, which is disciplineless. The cost of a > > > Yes, more so, as has been covered already. > > As has been *asserted* already. I don't see any posts where it was > convincingly demonstrated. Your arguments for Taste of Vitae being less > problematic than Voter Captivation appear to me to rest on Taste not > "negating" the cost of combat cards the way Voter Cap does the cost of > political actions/modifiers/etc (though that's your claim, not mine). > That's a card-design consideration, not a game-balance consideration, and > does not demonstrate that Taste of Vitae's blood gain is "less free" than > that from Voter Captivation. Not less free. But more limited. You're only able to taste blood that the vampire burns due to damage, which is limited to the amount they have. Nor can you typically re-taste after fame-rescue. Taste also doesn't give you two pool with it. > >> card - and in this case a discipline - is not "no cost". Nor is it more > >> free than Perfectionist or Capitalist - you're going to take actions > >> anyway, why not gain blood while you're at it? > > > It is moreso than those. See also master phase actions. And '1'. > > No, those are equally free (cost a cardslot and the opportunity to play the > card), though you are correct that they don't grant as much blood > immediately when played. An MPA is more expensive than just a card slot. > They may grant as much over the course of a game, > though, and do *not* rely on your deck succeeding in its task to give the > free blood (you just have to take successful actions for the archetypes, you > don't have to pass votes by X over the possible objections of other > players). A given minion can have one archetype. A given minion can play VC once per turn. A methuselah can typically play only one archetype per turn, but *each* minion can play VC. VC also gives you up to two pool each time you play it. VC doesn't cost an MPA. [ quoted text not captured ] Because if I'm going to drink 50 cans of soda this year I should logically buy them all now? How about 5000 in my lifetime? No, there's no logical imperative to pay all the costs up front. If doing so brings in some tangible benefit, put that on the table and so that we can discuss whether it's worth the cost. > Josh > > not the end of > predictable waves of historicity witness1 believe the lie

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1171479080.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 14, 1:19 pm, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote: >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> >> news:23oAh.11304$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> >> > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> >> >>> The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was >> >>> doing *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. >> >> >> No more so than Taste of Vitae, which is disciplineless. The cost >> >> of a >> >> > Yes, more so, as has been covered already. >> >> As has been *asserted* already. I don't see any posts where it was >> convincingly demonstrated. Your arguments for Taste of Vitae being >> less problematic than Voter Captivation appear to me to rest on Taste >> not "negating" the cost of combat cards the way Voter Cap does the >> cost of political actions/modifiers/etc (though that's your claim, >> not mine). That's a card-design consideration, not a game-balance >> consideration, and does not demonstrate that Taste of Vitae's blood >> gain is "less free" than that from Voter Captivation. > > Not less free. But more limited. You're only able to taste blood that > the vampire burns due to damage, which is limited to the amount they > have. Nor can you typically re-taste after fame-rescue. Taste also > doesn't give you two pool with it. > ...and VC effect is limited to x = (capacity)-(amount of blood needed to call/pass the vote) + 2, and you must generate x "in favor" votes above whats needed to pass, of course. Is it the +2 pool which bothers you? Because thats the only thing I see above and beyond what limits both cards. But then, Taste is discipline-less, anyone can use it... The nerfing of Pulled Fangs and Embrace would indicate a general trend towards discipline-less cards having the lesser effect. [ quoted text not captured ] One reason offered here; http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/eb91dca4e6079fb4?dmode=source&hl=en "The other thing I really want card change advocates (be it VC, or any other card) to think about is, is the problem big enough to warrant changing a card's text, in light of the extra burden that adds to new players? Personally, I've got a fairly high threshold for changing text. That mostly stems from how often i have to introduce the game to new players. On the back end of the many changes to card text, I can say it is _not_the blessing I thought it was five years ago. Its just another set of problems/complications that need to be clarified, which is why I'd rather we would all just be done with meddling with card text, altogether. Its a lot easier to "sell" card text changes to a new player if you can say that there are no more coming with a degree of honesty. " Regards DaveZ atom weaver

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:zNoAh.11932$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > The point being that changing VC (assuming VC is overpowered enough to > warrant being changed itself) doesn't necessarily mean that "many" > (Duffin's word) or "500" (your words) cards (which are not in and of > themselves overpowered enough to warrant being changed individually) > should also be dragged into the change machine in the name of perfection. There's one more point I'd like to present here: If you think that Voter Captivation is too strong, but without rising to the level of "broken" - and it seems that you do - and you want to change its text because of that - and it seems you do - that is a dramatic lowering of the bar required to change a card's text. In the past, I believe cards have only been changed for power-level reasons when they are seen as "broken" or at least extremely overpowered. I am very concerned about lowering that bar for Voter Captivation, which in my eyes is pretty far from "broken". As always, thanks for your time. Josh has come over the years to appreciate the arguments made by card-text conservatives

In article <Xns98D78D19AA...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > If I'm looking at the same decks as Peter, they are > > a Guruhi Deck (no VC) > an Ishtarri/ Obf-Pre Sabbat deck (8 VC) > a !Nos KRC deck (no VC) > a lean IC/Maris/Huiti vote deck (no VC) > a Sha-Ennu/Malgorzata (no VC) I think we are looking at different decks--Jeff just recently (last day or so) posted 3 or 4 more TWDs. I was starting with the Turbo Lucita and going down from there: -Ishtari Vote (8xVC) -!Nos Vote (no VC) -IC Vote (no VC) -Sha Enu vote (no VC) -Ishtari Vote (6x VC) -Toreador Vote (6xVC) There were also a couple of Euro Brujah-y decks with a few Parity Shifts, but I ignored those. Again, though, I wasn't pointing to these decks as an sort of example of Voter Cap doing anything. Just as an example of how vote decks seem to be doing just fine as an overall strategy. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <1171470956.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <jedis...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Granted I have not read EVERY post to this thread, but I can't quite > ascertain if the problem with VC is: > > A) the fact a large vampire can fill up? > B) in PRE you can gain 2 pool? > C) all that newly aquired Blood can be converted into Pool? > D) All the above? The answer is (D), but you need to add in, uh, (C.5?) which is "this all happens while your deck is killing your prey, too" (i.e. Voter Cap happens as you KRC or Parity Shift or PTO, as opposed to Renewed Vigor or 5th or Concert Tour, all of which only happen when you take a specific action to use them which is not also killing your prey). > If it's A. Renewed Vigor does the same thing. Will this be next to > consider? (just asking) Unlikely. As it is a blood gaining specific action. That comes with a very specific, high cost (you need superior Salubritude which only comes on 2 vampires per grouping, and they are scarce). The cost of Voter Cap is "doing what you were doing anyway, and killing your prey at the same time". > If it's B. you must push votes and have PRE. Strong, but > overpowered???? Not sold. If you are playing a presence vote deck, you have PRE. And you were pushing the votes anyway. > If it's C. then again I assert that Minon Tap is the criminal here. > VC is mearly the conduit to bloats end. But so is RV and old 5th. Minion Tap is a card with a high payoff that comes with a high cost. The problem comes from Minion Tapping and then refilling for little to no effort (while killing your prey at the same time), not from simply Minion Tapping. If you tap Arika for 10, great, you have 10 more pool, but Arika only has 1 blood. Which makes her very vulnerable. If you can then refill Arika with limited effort (while killing your prey at the same time), the cost of the Minion Tap ceases to be that significant. > I understand it's a design issue as well, but again, is that because > of the strengh MT gives to VC. Or is it that Awe lets you basicly auto > pass your vote to fill again, rinse and repeat. Both Minion Tap and Awe are totally reasonable in and of themselves (i.e. powerful cards with very significant costs). Introduce Voter Cap, and their significant costs become much, much less significant. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 14, 2:16 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:1171479080.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Not less free. But more limited. You're only able to taste blood that > > the vampire burns due to damage, which is limited to the amount they > > have. Nor can you typically re-taste after fame-rescue. Taste also > > doesn't give you two pool with it. > > ...and VC effect is limited to x = (capacity)-(amount of blood needed to > call/pass the vote) + 2, Taste is equally limited by the capacity of the tasting minion. > and you must generate x "in favor" votes above > whats needed to pass, of course. X votes in favor can typically be generated more easily than a) making sure the opposing minion has X blood on them plus b) making sure they lose X blood due to damage in a single round of combat - especially since giving them more blood to fulfill a) runs counter-purpose to most combat decks. I'm not really sure how I could go about "proving" this statement, but I'm pretty sure it's generally true. Not to mention that entering combat is generally more dangerous than calling a vote. > Is it the +2 pool which bothers you? > Because thats the only thing I see above and beyond what limits both > cards. Taste does not create blood from nowhere. It has to be on the opposing minion, then lost by them due to damage in combat. If your minion goes to torpor, the blood is lost. If the opposing minion burns blood in some way other than damage, the Taste is less effective. If the opponent just has weenie vampires (or chump blocks with one) your Taste is less effective. VC puts new blood (and pool) on the table, limited only by the number of votes you can generate and the capacity of the acting minion. > But then, Taste is discipline-less, anyone can use it... The > nerfing of Pulled Fangs and Embrace would indicate a general trend > towards discipline-less cards having the lesser effect. Sure. That doesn't mean that the greater effect is automatically balanced. > One reason offered here; > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- > cards.jyhad/msg/eb91dca4e6079fb4?dmode=source&hl=en > > "The other thing I really want card change advocates (be it VC, or any > other card) to think about is, is the problem big enough to warrant > changing a card's text, in light of the extra burden that adds to new > players? Personally, I've got a fairly high threshold for changing > text. That mostly stems from how often i have to introduce the game to > new players. On the back end of the many changes to card text, I can > say it is _not_the blessing I thought it was five years ago. Its just > another set of problems/complications that need to be clarified, which > is why I'd rather we would all just be done with meddling with card > text, altogether. Its a lot easier to "sell" card text changes to a new > player if you can say that there are no more coming with a degree of > honesty. " I'll come out and say I don't know whether VC is overpowered enough to warrant change. But I think it's pretty clearly one of the more powerful effects in the game, and I think it probably has a negative impact on the design process. While it may appear that I'm arguing for it being changed, that's not really the case. I just think that most of the "it's fine, don't change it" arguments (besides this one) are pretty flawed, and it's in my nature to point out those flaws. So I don't know what the right answer really is. I *do* hope that LSJ takes the burden on players into consideration. But I don't think we can reasonably expect him not to make occasional tweaks for the good of the game - it's practically inevitable that the errata/rulings/ migrations list will grow over time. I hope that it does so slowly and only after careful consideration. This seems to have been the case in recent history (and in more distant history, it seems the problems were drastic enough to justify the drastic measures taken at the time). > Regards > DaveZ > atom weaver witness1 -believe the lie.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > If you think that Voter Captivation is too strong, but without rising to the > level of "broken" - and it seems that you do - and you want to change its > text because of that - and it seems you do - that is a dramatic lowering of > the bar required to change a card's text. > > In the past, I believe cards have only been changed for power-level reasons > when they are seen as "broken" or at least extremely overpowered. I am very > concerned about lowering that bar for Voter Captivation, which in my eyes is > pretty far from "broken". ... or at least (extremely) overpowered. No lowering the bar. Certainly no dramatic lowering. See also Fifth Tradition, which people keep bringing up here, or Taste of Vitae, or Day Operation, or Wake, or Alamut, or ...

In message <1171471173....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> writes: >Really? I'm Arika. Govern - freak - Scout - freak (just gained 5, >how much did you bleed for?) How much of that is going in your pool before I bleed you with a bunch of weenies again? 2 pool, 3 with an Info Highway? Okay. Now I come to bleed with my weenies again. How long can you stand up to being bled like that? And, of course, I can be bringing out more... >- bleed for a bazillion - freak - call >Domain Challenge/Ancient Influence/KRC/something good - freak. I >bounce you and Obey you and Majesty against you, because I have piles >of that in my deck. > >Aren't these examples fun? How are you drawing all of those so consistently without clogging? Note that very few decks can multi-act with anything like that consistency currently. A very focused weenie deck rarely has to worry about clogging in quite the same way, because it's not dependent on key cards - like drawing a Freak for every action, and not the Majesty and Obedience. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1171460765....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> writes: >Let me see if I understood your argument correctly. Weenies come out >faster, and so cycle cards faster. But they already came out >*massively* faster than fatties, and so *massively* cycled better. >Now they are (plucks number out of thin air) 10% faster, cycling 10% >better. Weenies improve a little, and fatties improve a whole >friggin' lot. Relatively, I fail to see how they are being made >stronger. Turn 2, quite possibly before I've had chance to Minion Tap or *anything, I get bled for somewhere above 12 (6 Computer Hacks) - 18 being hardly impossible, more than that if you feel like (say) Computer Hack + Conditioning. How many bleeds for 4 need to get through before a prey is really, really unhappy? Turn 2 currently, I get bled for a hell of a lot less than that because getting 6 weenie Dom vampires out is quite a bit harder. >I really don't put much stock in your hypothetical scenario of the >screaming weenie dominate deck. Perhaps if you had mentioned the word >"Wake" just once on the fatty deck's side I would have found it more >persuasive. Huh? I *did* say wake. I was talking about the fatty deck drawing defence to cope with this! >But it can't sift through cards with anything like as ruthless _____ >efficiency in the first couple of turns to get the defensive wakes it ^^^^^ >needs. How many are in the deck to get maybe 2 or 3 in the first hand? >Let's say they're in the first 9 cards. 3 defensive cards there, 90 >card deck, so that's approximately 30 of various defensive cards in the >deck. I was also following up a suggestion from LSJ who had been suggesting exactly those options, and I was talking about having 2 or 3 defensive cards in hand, whatever those might be for a given fattie - LSJ suggests Cat's Guidance, a wake, and Obedience for example. For the 2 or 3 defensive cards in the first 9 or so cards, what did you think I was talking about if not (the possibility of) wakes? It would be nice if you read what I wrote before discarding it. :-( [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 14, 5:20 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Turn 2, quite possibly before I've had chance to Minion Tap or > *anything, I get bled for somewhere above 12 (6 Computer Hacks) - 18 > being hardly impossible, more than that if you feel like (say) Computer > Hack + Conditioning. How many bleeds for 4 need to get through before a > prey is really, really unhappy? > > Turn 2 currently, I get bled for a hell of a lot less than that because > getting 6 weenie Dom vampires out is quite a bit harder. You can't *get* 6 vampires under the proposed system. I wish you would read what I wrote before discarding it. :( > Huh? I *did* say wake. I was talking about the fatty deck drawing > defence to cope with this! Sorry I missed that, then. I think all you are showing is that a deck that requires an 11 cap dies to a weenie dominate deck, under either system, making it a wash. Perhaps you could consider some of the gains, under less than corner-case, worst-case situations?

On Feb 14, 5:25 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: Hhhmm. Google Groups Beta seems to have consigned my original reply to oblivion. Apologies if I've replied twice. > How much of that is going in your pool before I bleed you with a bunch > of weenies again? 2 pool, 3 with an Info Highway? Okay. Now I come to > bleed with my weenies again. How long can you stand up to being bled > like that? And, of course, I can be bringing out more... Actually, I have unlimited transfers and can move back as much as I want. It's one of the things that helps fatties. > How are you drawing all of those so consistently without clogging? Note > that very few decks can multi-act with anything like that consistency > currently. My real point was that these stilted, contrived, "I play THIS!" examples are all but useless. But, in fact, I don't think that run of cards is far outside what the typical cheesy Arika deck can pull off. > A very focused weenie deck rarely has to worry about clogging in quite > the same way, because it's not dependent on key cards - like drawing a > Freak for every action, and not the Majesty and Obedience. Sure. You have shown that weenie decks retain some of their advantages. So what? Do you actually think it is *better* if that weenie dominate deck has free reign on the Arika deck for 3 turns? What's that math like? What I would like -- and no, this isn't anything like an argument -- is for you to at least *try* the system out, before discarding it out of hand. It's easy to laser in on "predator is weenie dominate, prey is an 11 cap, and nothing else is happening in the world". Real games are far more complex.

On Feb 15, 8:18 am, "bluedevil" <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 5:25 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > Hhhmm. Google Groups Beta seems to have consigned my original reply > to oblivion. Apologies if I've replied twice. > > > How much of that is going in your pool before I bleed you with a bunch > > of weenies again? 2 pool, 3 with an Info Highway? Okay. Now I come to > > bleed with my weenies again. How long can you stand up to being bled > > like that? And, of course, I can be bringing out more... > > Actually, I have unlimited transfers and can move back as much as I > want. It's one of the things that helps fatties. > > > How are you drawing all of those so consistently without clogging? Note > > that very few decks can multi-act with anything like that consistency > > currently. > > My real point was that these stilted, contrived, "I play THIS!" > examples are all but useless. But, in fact, I don't think that run of > cards is far outside what the typical cheesy Arika deck can pull off. > Note in hypothetical-land, one would build one's deck differently if one was expecting to have an OBF/FOR IC on turn 2 with unlimited transfers. Personally, I'd replace every one of those influence acceleration cards with Freaks, since I'd be active on the second turn. More Freaks + Less MCs = More chance to draw Freaks and actions = less chance of hand clog. Back to reality. > > A very focused weenie deck rarely has to worry about clogging in quite > > the same way, because it's not dependent on key cards - like drawing a > > Freak for every action, and not the Majesty and Obedience. > > Sure. You have shown that weenie decks retain some of their > advantages. So what? Do you actually think it is *better* if that > weenie dominate deck has free reign on the Arika deck for 3 turns? > What's that math like? > > What I would like -- and no, this isn't anything like an argument -- > is for you to at least *try* the system out, before discarding it out > of hand. It's easy to laser in on "predator is weenie dominate, prey > is an 11 cap, and nothing else is happening in the world". Real games > are far more complex. Note that the unlimited transfer rules do have a decent (well, relatively better) chance of crushing the abomination that is weenie vote, since the moment 4 Caitiff hit the table the prey/pred will bring out a voter and stymie the Praxis Seizing. It might be a step in the right direction anyway: limiting the choices weenie decks have for success. But I'm a hater. Merlin

On Feb 14, 10:42 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Proof", in the manner in which you're using it here, is for mathematics > and philosophical exercises in logic, not science, and not games. Which was precisely my point... so I snipped the rest of the discussion, since apparently this is agreed. > But where you are wrong in your analogy is that "proof" is not what is being > asked for. If someone asserts "VC is overpowered" and another says "prove > it", or "show me", what they're really asking for is evidence for the > assertion. Evidence is what we use to inform our decisions, and if there > is enough of it, we can change our minds on VC (or Global Warming). True. That's what I was asserting earlier. Groovy! > If VC is overpowered, it would stand to reason that you could check for the > consequences of its being overpowered. Indeed! An excellent idea. > One check would be that overpowered > cards tend to be noticed by the talented players worldwide, leveraged for > tournament wins, and thus show a unbalanced presence in the TWDA, or if it > were overpowered in a manner which was disruptive, one would expect that > people would vocalize aobut the need to include special defenses in > planning for opponent's use of the card. I agree with you that this would be a clear-cut case for the card being too powerful, were we able to find evidence like that. > Thus far, there is no evidence > for VC being overpowered, in terms of high tournament win results, or in > terms of a need for special defense. Hmmm. The trouble here is that this argument pre-asserts that the card is *so* overbalanced that it provides a clear advantage when in use against other cards. As has been repeatedly pointed out, that is not the basis of this analysis. Thus, returning to this point is attempting to change the fundamental supposition of the discussion. Foul! Ten yard penalty! We are looking for evidence that the card is more powerful than others in its class. It was asserted early on that the card is not *broken*, but that its relative power may be having unintentional effects, and that the came may be improved were that card not quite so powerful. This is a more elusive concept, and thus trickier to garner evidence for, but so far there is quite a *lot* of evidence that this might be the case. > There could be other checks (tests) > which would provide evidence that VC is overpowered, but those are the only > two which come to mind right now. How about the opinion of other experienced players? :) If, say, a thread were opened in a discussion group about whether or not the card was overpowered, one might expect that some reasonable proportion of the most experienced players out there (fyi, I am not in this category) would come down in favor of a change. Like, for example, what has happened here. -Jason

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:DnKAh.22164$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah. You see, most of those happened quite a long time ago, and it was my impression that White Wolf intended not to continue altering card-texts in such a carefree fashion. For the very sensible reason that it should require a pretty substantial problem with a card to justify altering its text and making all the extant copies incorrect. And that if you're going to go out and fix lots of overpowered cards, one would expect the fixing to extend to everything that needed fixing. (ie, if Voter Captivation were going to be changed, I would have expected to see it changed in CE along with Fifth Tradition, Taste of Vitae, and Day Operation.) Speaking of Day Operation, by the way, I was astounded that that change got made. A card that had been in print since Jyhad, changed to not work against allies because of... flavor reasons? It boggles the mind. Certainly Day Op wasn't particularly overpowered as written; as revised, it is very nearly wallpapered by Daring the Dawn. To my mind, if one wants to open up the universe of possible card designs for new sets, the really logical thing to do at this point, rather than picking out individual existing cards and changing their texts around, is to embrace full-on set rotation. You already did it for that very reason with vampires through the grouping rules; if old library cards are now problematic for allowing the design of new library cards, why not start rotating the legal sets for library cards too? It would instantly solve the problem of Voter Captivation (not to mention about a hundred other "top of the power curve" cards including the ones Ben Swainbank recently pointed to as limiting competitive deck design). Granted, this idea doesn't seem to be all that popular with the player-base. But changing individual card-texts isn't very popular with the player-base either. Josh doesn't care what happens to old cards

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45d0...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > >> Influence changes might do something, sure, but I think the action >> advantages over time are the bigger issue. Reducing small vampires' >> inherent bleed, votes, strength (or increasing the same for larger >> vampires, if you prefer) would be more apropos, I think. > > i think adjusting those sorts of things would be very scary from a > play-balance point of view, and playtesting, etc. Also, it'd be complete > structural reform, which tends not to go down very well with the player > base. Well, uh, yeah. :-) > I'd, personally, rather see _limits_ in place based on capacity. eg: > > a vampire can never have more votes, stealth, intercept or bleed than it's > current capacity. You may not play a card to increase a vampire's votes, > stealth, intercept or bleed above it's current capacity. > > how's that? simple to remember, no maths required (unlike if the rule was > capacity/2 round down, or something annoying), and isn't a HUGE change for > a lot of decks. you could maybe include strength in the list, for > consistency. 'cause i guess 2, 3 or 4 strength is still nothing to sneeze > at when followed with a disarm, for those weenie pot lovers amongst us. > (hi peter! :D ) I would buy that. I mean, it'd be something. I think allowing 2-caps to bleed for 2 and 3-caps to bleed for 3 (at 2 and 3 stealth respectively) means the problem would not be *eliminated*. But it would be noticeably reduced, yeah. The anti-weenie-combat effect would be interesting too. Though it would maybe be more equitable (though also more complicated) to limit "damage inflicted in a round" or something like that, since if "strength" were the only limited factor, weenie CEL guns wouldn't be affected, but weenie POT combat would. Josh trying to catch up with everyone else

<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171317511....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 12, 9:23 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote: >> This is IMO because the advantages of smaller vampires are inherent in >> the >> game's mechanics (they cost less pool and have, consequentially, more >> actions-per-pool-invested, more blocks-per-pool-invested, and so on). >> Printing cards that help bigger vampires means you have to build your >> deck >> with, draw, and play the cards at the right times to gain whatever >> benefits >> they can provide. The smaller vampires have no such requirement to use >> their comparative advantages. > > Barring library cards, I definitely agree that small vampires get more > actions-per-pool-invested and more blocks-per-pool-invested. > > Nonetheless, every deck has library cards. By choosing to play with > big-cap vampires, you can get much more powerful effects, like Eternal > Vigilance, No Secrets, any of the cards that give blood to younger > uncontrolled vamps, any of the votes that help big vamps, the combo > discipline cards that tend to be more powerful, etc. This is true to a point. I guess the difference in our evaluation is that I think it's only true up to a relatively small point. :-) And, of course, the weenies get to use library cards too, and most of their library cards are just as good as the fatties' library cards. Yeah, Eternal Vigilance and No Secrets are strong cards, but they're not THAT much stronger than Wake by itself. (I know! A lot stronger! But not SO much stronger as to compensate for the capacity differences we're talking about.) The Govern family, meanwhile, is just about as good for small-to-midcap vampires as it is for big ones. The combo discipline cards are mostly cute concepts but not all that amazing (and they're probably hard to balance to be amazing, too, since there's nothing stopping relatively small vamps from getting the appropriate disciplines and also being able to use them). > I do agree that when you choose to play big caps you have to ensure > they can act/block enough, but there are plenty of existing cards in > the game that allow such things (freak drive, forced march, > helicopter, wake varieties, etc.) Most of which are also available to small vampires, though. > That said, I still think big caps could use a little more help, but I > don't think it's quite as dire as you make it out to be. I think the > weenie, mid-cap, big-cap decision creates interesting games and a > variety of playable decks, which is exactly what I want. To some extent, yes. But I think we see a lot more high-cap vamps being played by good players because they're not as *interested* in small-vampire decks anymore, rather than because small-vampire decks aren't still *better*. And then, of course, there's the masking effect of the multi-playerness of VTES on the evaluation of the goodness or badness of any particular deck (or decktype). > I think influence changes would be a great idea, not only because it > helps big caps get out sooner and playing their cards, it also speeds > up the game in general (which would be a very significant plus!) > Timeouts and long games are significant detriments to fun play. I think that could be fun, sure. I'd prefer a rule that didn't help smaller vampires at all, but I guess that's just me. I'd also prefer a rule that limited small vampires' ability to be as nasty as big vampires in general, rather than just one affecting the influence phase, but again, that may be just me... > Regarding widespread rules changes related to capacity, haven't you > noticed that many big caps have inherent bonuses to bleed, strength, > intercept, stealth, and votes? The game is already balanced exactly > in the way you are suggesting. Heh! Not exactly. :-) The big caps don't have nearly ENOUGH bonus to bleed strength intercept etc. to make them as powerful as the small-caps. Does every 9-cap printed have +2 bleed? (Do *any* of them?) Does any group of three 3-caps have the ability to bleed for 3? Unfortunately, they do. > Personally, I think LSJ is an incredible game designer for how well > this game has improved over time without a huge spike in the power > curve, all the while introducing new mechanics and allowing for a > diversity of strong deck types. It's really amazing! Eh. It's been OK. I don't know that it's really *improved* that much over time from my point of view. I think the game was pretty much just as good, as a game, when Jyhad was the only thing in print. (With the No Repeat Actions/No Vote Push rules, of course.) It does have more variety now, which I do enjoy. Josh hard to please

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1171479080.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 14, 1:19 pm, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote: >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> >> news:23oAh.11304$O02....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> >> > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> >> >>> The ease comes in the fact that the set-up is "what your deck was >> >>> doing >> >>> *besides* gaining blood. The blood gain is free. >> >> >> No more so than Taste of Vitae, which is disciplineless. The cost of >> >> a >> >> > Yes, more so, as has been covered already. >> >> As has been *asserted* already. I don't see any posts where it was >> convincingly demonstrated. Your arguments for Taste of Vitae being less >> problematic than Voter Captivation appear to me to rest on Taste not >> "negating" the cost of combat cards the way Voter Cap does the cost of >> political actions/modifiers/etc (though that's your claim, not mine). >> That's a card-design consideration, not a game-balance consideration, and >> does not demonstrate that Taste of Vitae's blood gain is "less free" than >> that from Voter Captivation. > > Not less free. But more limited. You're only able to taste blood that > the vampire burns due to damage, which is limited to the amount they > have. Nor can you typically re-taste after fame-rescue. Taste also > doesn't give you two pool with it. Sure, that's all true. Taste also doesn't require a discipline at all, let alone a superior discipline. Its blood gain is still just as "free" with what you were already doing as Voter Captivation's is. >> >> card - and in this case a discipline - is not "no cost". Nor is it >> >> more >> >> free than Perfectionist or Capitalist - you're going to take actions >> >> anyway, why not gain blood while you're at it? >> >> > It is moreso than those. See also master phase actions. And '1'. >> >> No, those are equally free (cost a cardslot and the opportunity to play >> the >> card), though you are correct that they don't grant as much blood >> immediately when played. > > An MPA is more expensive than just a card slot. Again, true, but it doesn't counter the point. The bloodgain, once you've invested the cardslot, is free (and permanent, compensating for the MPA cost). >> They may grant as much over the course of a game, >> though, and do *not* rely on your deck succeeding in its task to give the >> free blood (you just have to take successful actions for the archetypes, >> you >> don't have to pass votes by X over the possible objections of other >> players). > > A given minion can have one archetype. A given minion can play VC once > per turn. A methuselah can typically play only one archetype per turn, > but *each* minion can play VC. VC also gives you up to two pool each > time you play it. VC doesn't cost an MPA. A given minion isn't going to play VC once per turn barring The Perfect Draw(tm) though. Nor is every minion going to play VC, again barring The Perfect Draw(tm). And a given minion only *needs* one archetype, because it keeps giving its free blood every turn once you've put it in play (again, that's why it costs an MPA, because it's permanent and keeps on giving with no additional investment of cardslots or resources). >> As far as I can see, there is a real cost to players every time a card >> text >> is changed. It should not be done lightly. However, if one is going to >> take the other approach to designing the game, logically one ought to aim >> for greater perfection in all of the game's cards, not just a few at a >> time. > > Because if I'm going to drink 50 cans of soda this year I should > logically buy them all now? How about 5000 in my lifetime? No, there's > no logical imperative to pay all the costs up front. If doing so > brings in some tangible benefit, put that on the table and so that we > can discuss whether it's worth the cost. John, I respect your arguments, but this is a terrible analogy. :-) Cardtext changes are not consumed one at a time with a limit as to how many you can "enjoy" in a single day. In fact, if a cardtext change is going to benefit you, the more of them you can have immediately, the longer you'll have for them all to give you their benefits. It is *absolutely* best to get all the cardtext changes at once if you're going to get them eventually: you have fewer wrongly-printed cards in circulation, you don't have to keep telling players "oh, now this card has changed too", you can tell players that the problems have all been fixed already so now they won't have to worry much about new problems cropping up down the road. If you see what I'm getting at, with card-text changes, there's supposed to be a net *benefit* to players every time one is made. If there is a cost to making the change, it's supposed to be outweighed by the benefits. So when you're getting benefits, you get the *most* benefit by getting as many benefits as possible as soon as you can. Josh needs a new benefits package

"paladin_brand" <jason.van...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171555548....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 14, 10:42 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Thus far, there is no evidence >> for VC being overpowered, in terms of high tournament win results, or in >> terms of a need for special defense. > > Hmmm. The trouble here is that this argument pre-asserts that the > card is *so* overbalanced that it provides a clear advantage when in > use against other cards. > > As has been repeatedly pointed out, that is not the basis of this > analysis. > > Thus, returning to this point is attempting to change the fundamental > supposition of the discussion. Foul! Ten yard penalty! Uh... that point is the only *sensible* way to try to find overpowered cards, in my view. What are we doing here, faith-based game design? :-) > We are looking for evidence that the card is more powerful than others > in its class. It was asserted early on that the card is not *broken*, > but that its relative power may be having unintentional effects, and > that the came may be improved were that card not quite so powerful. > This is a more elusive concept, and thus trickier to garner evidence > for, but so far there is quite a *lot* of evidence that this might be > the case. Sure, there's plenty of evidence that it's more powerful than some other cards - but *that* kind of evidence can be mustered up against dozens (if not hundreds?) of cards in VTES. The question therefore has to be asked, why Voter Captivation and not those others? The answer appears to be very much in the eye of the beholder. There's no good evidence that Voter Captivation is actually worsening the game by its existence - nor, apparently, is there going to be. >> There could be other checks (tests) >> which would provide evidence that VC is overpowered, but those are the >> only >> two which come to mind right now. > > How about the opinion of other experienced players? :) > > If, say, a thread were opened in a discussion group about whether or > not the card was overpowered, one might expect that some reasonable > proportion of the most experienced players out there (fyi, I am not in > this category) would come down in favor of a change. > > Like, for example, what has happened here. Um. How many of the most experienced players have spoken out in favor of changing Voter Captivation? How many against? I don't think there are more in favor than against. The thing is, it appears that the key vote in favor is the only one that matters: LSJ's. Ultimately, it's an opinion poll of one. Those of us who like the idea of evidence-based decisionmaking, well, all we can do is try to sway that opinion. Josh not a swayer

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:XW0Ah.43747$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... > bluedevil wrote: >> 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to >> see your next vampire. Weenies still retain some, but not all, of >> their current advantages. > > This, as I've said before, still seems like overkill (changing the > mid-game and end-game instead of just the opening). > > Some other options (some of which have been forward already): > > a) Unlimited transfers on each Methuselah's first turn, but restricted to > "move pool to an uncontrolled vampire". Seems OK to me. > b) Ten additional transfers on first turn (no restrictions on use). I think it would be better to at least restrict them to not be used on drawing additional crypt cards. Weenies don't need that kind of help. > This could also be seen as a time-saver, as well (cutting down on game > length), so would be appropriate for a V:EKN floor rule (since time limits > are also a V:EKN floor rule addition) instead of being an adjustment to > the base rules themselves. > > Other comments? The idea of being able to implement it as a VEKN floor rule instead of a rulebook rule is nice, but I think limiting small vampires to a maximum amount of bleed, stealth, and votes (and maybe also "damage inflicted in a round") would do better at accomplishing the goal. Something like "No vampire may have more bleed, stealth, votes, or inflict more damage in a round than his capacity. A vampire may not use a card or effect that would increase his bleed, stealth, votes, or damage inflicted above his capacity." Josh we have nothing to fear but... simplicity itself!

On Feb 15, 8:46 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "paladin_brand" <jason.vandenber...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > Hmmm. The trouble here is that this argument pre-asserts that the > > card is *so* overbalanced that it provides a clear advantage when in > > use against other cards. > > > As has been repeatedly pointed out, that is not the basis of this > > analysis. > > > Thus, returning to this point is attempting to change the fundamental > > supposition of the discussion. Foul! Ten yard penalty! > > Uh... that point is the only *sensible* way to try to find overpowered > cards, in my view. What are we doing here, faith-based game design? :-) Aha! And here, I believe, is the central crux of this disagreement. I will return to a (slighted edited version of a) brash and not-very- nice statement I made in my earlier post: "...insisting that you be presented with evidence to 'prove' something that is so completely abstract and judgement-laden demonstrates a misunderstanding of the complexity of the problem." No, really. I mean it this time. For a game designer, there is, often, really, truly, for reals, *no other way to do this* besides using your own judgement, and comparing that to the judgement of others, without any hard evidence upon which to base your evaluation. The engineering-minded among us may reject this notion out of hand, and I completely relate with that instinct. That does not, however, mean that it is not true. ;) > There's no good evidence that Voter Captivation is actually worsening the > game by its existence - nor, apparently, is there going to be. True! See above. > > How about the opinion of other experienced players? :) > > > If, say, a thread were opened in a discussion group about whether or > > not the card was overpowered, one might expect that some reasonable > > proportion of the most experienced players out there (fyi, I am not in > > this category) would come down in favor of a change. > > > Like, for example, what has happened here. > > Um. How many of the most experienced players have spoken out in favor of > changing Voter Captivation? How many against? I don't think there are more > in favor than against. The thing is, it appears that the key vote in favor > is the only one that matters: LSJ's. Well, I can say that were *I* looking for evidence of said "overpowered-ness", I would not be looking for a majority, as you are implying. In fact, this kind of trace evidence often only exists in the awareness of a small group of players. The fact that right off the bat several experience players went "Yeah, I totally know what you mean," is "evidence" (even if it is not "proof"). > Ultimately, it's an opinion poll of one. Those of us who like the idea of > evidence-based decisionmaking, well, all we can do is try to sway that > opinion. Absolutely. Design by committee gets you wonders like the AT&T logo (whoops, I mean the at&t logo), and I, for one, prefer V:TES to, say, v:tes. ;) -Jason

On Feb 15, 11:46 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, there's plenty of evidence that it's more powerful than some other > cards - but *that* kind of evidence can be mustered up against dozens (if > not hundreds?) of cards in VTES. The question therefore has to be asked, > why Voter Captivation and not those others? The answer appears to be very > much in the eye of the beholder. I may be just pointing out the obvious here, but I feel like it has gotten lost in the back-and-forth. As I understood it, the problem is not so much that VC is hugely overpowered and disruptive. The problem is that VC presents a significant barrier to designing new vote cards. Someone (Darby?) made a nice post suggesting other ways to cost vote cards besides blood or pool, but I think the concern about VC from a design POV is valid. From a play balance point of view? Not so much, IMO. It's gross and sick and in a league of its own but, as you pointed out, so are a lot of things.

On Feb 15, 11:36 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > Because if I'm going to drink 50 cans of soda this year I should > > logically buy them all now? How about 5000 in my lifetime? No, there's > > no logical imperative to pay all the costs up front. If doing so > > brings in some tangible benefit, put that on the table and so that we > > can discuss whether it's worth the cost. > > John, I respect your arguments, but this is a terrible analogy. :-) > Cardtext changes are not consumed one at a time with a limit as to how many > you can "enjoy" in a single day. In fact, if a cardtext change is going to > benefit you, the more of them you can have immediately, the longer you'll > have for them all to give you their benefits. It is *absolutely* best to > get all the cardtext changes at once if you're going to get them eventually: > you have fewer wrongly-printed cards in circulation, you don't have to keep > telling players "oh, now this card has changed too", you can tell players > that the problems have all been fixed already so now they won't have to > worry much about new problems cropping up down the road. You assume a bit much here. > If you see what I'm getting at, with card-text changes, there's supposed to > be a net *benefit* to players every time one is made. If there is a cost to > making the change, it's supposed to be outweighed by the benefits. So when > you're getting benefits, you get the *most* benefit by getting as many > benefits as possible as soon as you can. Only if you've analyzed the situation enough to be relatively certain that the benefit actually does outweigh the cost. Since it takes time and energy to evaluate whether any given card is worth changing, is it better to wait until we've analyzed every card that is under consideration for change before changing any of them? What happens if something crops up that changes our analysis of a given card after we claim that we've fixed all the problem cards? If it were plainly obvious when cards warranted change, you'd be absolutely correct. But the existence of this thread pretty much squashes that idea. So the question becomes, do we wait until we've analyzed all potential problem cards and determined which ones are worth fixing? Or do we analyze them one at a time and get those net benefits in circulation sooner? > Josh > > needs a new benefits package Witness1 -flash boom bang

On Feb 15, 11:56 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > I think it would be better to at least restrict them to not be used on > drawing additional crypt cards. Weenies don't need that kind of help. Zopf cleaned that up. You may move pool with transfers *or* pay a pool to draw a new vampire. And that is the entirety of the "influence rules" (until somebody else points out something else I missed). > The idea of being able to implement it as a VEKN floor rule instead of a > rulebook rule is nice, but I think limiting small vampires to a maximum > amount of bleed, stealth, and votes (and maybe also "damage inflicted in a > round") would do better at accomplishing the goal. Something like "No > vampire may have more bleed, stealth, votes, or inflict more damage in a > round than his capacity. A vampire may not use a card or effect that would > increase his bleed, stealth, votes, or damage inflicted above his capacity." Your epicycles are *purty*. :)

On Feb 14, 11:57 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171470956.429447.221...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > <some very fine points> Ok, understood and well taken. I just fear the demise of playing large vampires because of the limited power to fill up that gives them a ballance vs. weenie breed. In competitive enviorments we will always see Breed and Bloat. It's just a fact of life. I just want to see that the ballance of power between the two are kept. If VC gets the 5th treatment, it's my opinion the ballance will shift. ***JediMike***

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ... >> I'd, personally, rather see _limits_ in place based on capacity. eg: >> >> a vampire can never have more votes, stealth, intercept or bleed than it's >> current capacity. You may not play a card to increase a vampire's votes, >> stealth, intercept or bleed above it's current capacity. >> >> how's that? simple to remember, no maths required (unlike if the rule was >> capacity/2 round down, or something annoying), and isn't a HUGE change for >> a lot of decks. you could maybe include strength in the list, for >> consistency. 'cause i guess 2, 3 or 4 strength is still nothing to sneeze >> at when followed with a disarm, for those weenie pot lovers amongst us. >> (hi peter! :D ) > > I would buy that. I mean, it'd be something. I think allowing 2-caps to > bleed for 2 and 3-caps to bleed for 3 (at 2 and 3 stealth respectively) > means the problem would not be *eliminated*. But it would be noticeably > reduced, yeah. The anti-weenie-combat effect would be interesting too. > Though it would maybe be more equitable (though also more complicated) to > limit "damage inflicted in a round" or something like that, since if > "strength" were the only limited factor, weenie CEL guns wouldn't be > affected, but weenie POT combat would. ow. i just realised how hurty the strength rule would be for tupdog decks. but maybe that's something we want? :) they'd still have Raking Talons, and prevent/disarm, as long as they could land their hands for 1. but the strength rule would also make other, non-strength based, combat cards more seen, i guess. which would be cool. whereas a damage-per-round would potentially have the opposite effect. and at the moment i think weenie pot _is_ very strong, and could do with a tone-down. the combat end of things can be very decimating. players not being able to juggle the pred-prey directions and not actually winning games is the main problem, but hampering the combat angle slightly might make it so that only those good players even try (hi peter!). Then the low-to-middle cap strength-based combat becomes, relatively, slightly more viable. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Howdy, > I would buy that. I mean, it'd be something. I think allowing 2-caps to > bleed for 2 and 3-caps to bleed for 3 (at 2 and 3 stealth respectively) > means the problem would not be *eliminated*. But it would be noticeably > reduced, yeah. The anti-weenie-combat effect would be interesting too. > Though it would maybe be more equitable (though also more complicated) to > limit "damage inflicted in a round" or something like that, since if > "strength" were the only limited factor, weenie CEL guns wouldn't be > affected, but weenie POT combat would. So Rico's Bombs would only do 2? What, he only knows where to find pipe bombs? It wouldn't make much sense that weenies couldn't make equipment work right, while fatties (and allies) presumably still could. I see no real reason to put capacity restrictions on combat; using low capacity vampires is one of the only ways you can make combat go at all right now. (And weenie guns is generally laying out enough pool per vampire that it's really 'mid-cap' guns by the time it's done.) I suppose that if you wanted to make a rule that _permanent_ strength (or votes or stealth or intercept or bleed) couldn't be larger than capacity, that would be OK, though Smudge won't like it. Personally, I like the schemes where base values (really, just bleed and maybe votes) are keyed to capacity, so that small vampires have 0 base bleed, while big ones have +1 or even +2 bleed. And even if you made it apply to strength (which I wouldn't advocate), 0 base strength wouldn't make a huge amount of difference to most weenie combat. Alex

In article <1171566199.9...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <jedis...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Ok, understood and well taken. I just fear the demise of playing > large vampires because of the limited power to fill up that gives them > a ballance vs. weenie breed. In competitive enviorments we will always > see Breed and Bloat. It's just a fact of life. I just want to see that > the ballance of power between the two are kept. If VC gets the 5th > treatment, it's my opinion the ballance will shift. As noted elsewhere in the crazy, crazy discussion, nerfing Voter Cap doesn't necessarily kill off bloating for large vampires--it opens up the window for new cards that do similar things (i.e. like a vote card that has the exact same effect as Voter Cap does currently, which would be fine as a card). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1171575884.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, "wumpus" <wum...@comcast.net> wrote: > I see no real reason to put capacity restrictions on combat; using low > capacity vampires is one of the only ways you can make combat go at > all right now. That, and unlike, say, bleeding with weenies, fighting with weenies comes with its own inherent limits--if you are a 3 cap fighting with someone, you get killed pretty quickly by someone with an opportunistic Magnum or Carrion Crows. Weenie combat can be effective, yeah, but it does run into getting killed an awful lot just by showing up. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 15, 4:58 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1171575884.874084.250...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > > "wumpus" <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > I see no real reason to put capacity restrictions on combat; using low > > capacity vampires is one of the only ways you can make combat go at > > all right now. > > That, and unlike, say, bleeding with weenies, fighting with weenies > comes with its own inherent limits--if you are a 3 cap fighting with > someone, you get killed pretty quickly by someone with an opportunistic > Magnum or Carrion Crows. Weenie combat can be effective, yeah, but it > does run into getting killed an awful lot just by showing up. "Never bring a Gate to a Crowfight." witness1 -paralyze this

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171565429.0...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I remember the "barrier to card design" issue being mentioned. But to me, the problem with that problem is that (a) it's vague and there's no way to really concretely address it, and (b) as far as I can tell, it is not a very significant barrier to designing new vote cards. It seems to me pretty easy (admittedly with a cost in card-text on the vote cards) to work around it. See Eldest Command Undeath for an example. I don't think a little less card-text being required on new cards justifies changing the card-text on thousands of copies of a card that's been in print for twelve years. Your mileage may vary. :-) Josh

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171565842.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 11:56 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think it would be better to at least restrict them to not be used on >> drawing additional crypt cards. Weenies don't need that kind of help. > > Zopf cleaned that up. You may move pool with transfers *or* pay a > pool to draw a new vampire. And that is the entirety of the > "influence rules" (until somebody else points out something else I > missed). Ah, sounds good to me. In that case either influence rule-change seems like it would work fine to me. >> The idea of being able to implement it as a VEKN floor rule instead of a >> rulebook rule is nice, but I think limiting small vampires to a maximum >> amount of bleed, stealth, and votes (and maybe also "damage inflicted in >> a >> round") would do better at accomplishing the goal. Something like "No >> vampire may have more bleed, stealth, votes, or inflict more damage in a >> round than his capacity. A vampire may not use a card or effect that >> would >> increase his bleed, stealth, votes, or damage inflicted above his >> capacity." > > Your epicycles are *purty*. Why thank you. :-) Do you mean that there's a simpler way to write limits than that? Or just that using limits is complicated where changing the transfer rules is simpler? I would agree to the latter, but I'm not sure that changing the transfer rules accomplishes enough, you know? Josh wheels outside of wheels

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1171565598.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah, now THAT is a reasonable point. :-) I think I still disagree, though. If we're not sure whether a card is a problem or not, it's quite possible to study it and all the other cards that we think "might" be problems at the same time, until we're sure whether they need fixing or not. Perhaps it comes back to my wanting to set the bar as high as "cards should be causing actual problems to warrant rewriting their texts," but I think there is more harm in "fixing" cards one at a time - while simultaneously printing more unaltered copies of other cards that will end up getting "fixed" later - than in allowing the not-sure-if-it's-a-problem-yet-problem to persist until studies on all current "maybe problem" cards have been completed. Josh seeking clarity

On Feb 16, 11:12 am, "Joshua Duffin" <joshduffin...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote: > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Assuming that splitting our focus doesn't slow down the process of determination. If it does, then we're delaying the net benefit of any changes that are worth the cost. > Perhaps it > comes back to my wanting to set the bar as high as "cards should be causing > actual problems to warrant rewriting their texts," but I think there is more > harm in "fixing" cards one at a time - while simultaneously printing more > unaltered copies of other cards that will end up getting "fixed" later - > than in allowing the not-sure-if-it's-a-problem-yet-problem to persist until > studies on all current "maybe problem" cards have been completed. Again, this is assuming that all the relevant decisions can be made simultaneously overnight. I'd rather more time and care was taken than that. witness1 -filchware's grenade shop

On Feb 5, 4:43 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 7:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Voter Cap itself may be the problem. > > > It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, unblockable, > > restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in its primary goal in > > the first place). And then it compounds the effect with pool gain to boot. > > Yes. It seems incredibly good for all vote decks with PRE as > currently written. > > > Thoughts? > > Ooh, LSJ asking for design input - I love it! This game is so great, > and LSJ is awesome. It's really incredible that the CCG designer is > asking for open input from players. > > My thoughts: > - I agree that Voter Cap is overpowered. > - I like the idea of simplifying the card to work whenever the vote > passes, regardless by how much (or at least 2.) After reading this thread and doing the card analysis on the TWDA, my opinion on the power level of Voter Cap has changed. I still believe it's a powerful card, but not so powerful that it needs to be nerfed to the extent of LSJ's initial card proposals (see the beginning of this thread.) I now think a balanced Voter Cap would be to simply add 1 blood cost to the card. Also, if the pool-gain aspect of the card was deemed too powerful, the PRE version could reduce the cost of the card by 1 blood. That said, I have great faith in LSJ's design choices, and I'll be willing to try whatever he decides. Ira

On Feb 12, 11:22 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > bluedevil wrote: > > On Feb 12, 10:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> What fix do you propose? > > > 1) Make influences unlimited. Pay one and end your influence phase to > > see your next vampire. Weeniesstill retain some, but not all, of > > their current advantages. > > > 2) Continue on course with printing generic cards that help large > > vampires, such as the several solid ones released in 3rd Edition (I'm > > thinking mainly of > > Dance Macabre, Grooming the Protege, and Minor Irritation). > > Hmm. #2 looks doable without much trouble. #1 might take more study. But anyway, > that clears that. How about #3 or #4 as added options. #3 No vampire may be moved to the ready reagion until all players have 4 or more transfers. #4 No more than one vampire may be moved from the uncontrolled to the conntrolled region during the influnce phase. Raille

Raille wrote: > #4 No more than one vampire may be moved from the uncontrolled to the > conntrolled region during the influnce phase. #4 would thwart the tactic of building up several medium/large vampires and bringing them out all together (usu. in the face of an adjacent combat wombat deck when you'd like an extra target or two to take the falls so that when it comes around to your turn again, you still have a ready minion or two).

[ quoted text not captured ] Good point. Thats why we keep you. :) Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] If you want to get fancy, you could salvage this by introducing "debut" tokens: A Methuselah gets 1 Debut token every influence phase. Unused debut tokens are kept from turn to turn (unlike transfers -- hey, that's why they're tokens). Then redefine the influence phase activity: 1 transfer -> 1 blood on (unchanged) 2 transfers -> 1 blood off (unchanged) 4 transfers + 1 pool + 1 debut token -> draw from crypt to uncontrolled. at end: burn debut tokens to move "full" minions to controlled (at one debut token per minion). That is, moving a crypt card during the influence phase costs a debut token. (with or without the rule making it mandatory to do so if you have a debut token and a full vampire).

In message <Sb_Ch.15215$gj4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >If you want to get fancy, you could salvage this by introducing "debut" >tokens: A Methuselah gets 1 Debut token every influence phase. Unused >debut tokens are kept from turn to turn (unlike transfers -- hey, >that's why they're tokens). If you were doing that, you might want to cap the number of tokens at some small number - say, 4. That shouldn't actually affect any real decks doing the trick to avoid being picked off one by one by a combat deck, while also keeping the number of tokens required small and manageable. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On 6 Feb 2007 13:36:15 -0800, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 6, 3:07 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> > James Coupe wrote: >> > But if: >> > 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful >> > and >> > 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design >> >> > then the obvious course of action is to fix VC. >> >> I'm not sure this is the case. I'd add: >> >> 3) if VC's existance enables a game-breaking or overly powerful deck >> type. > > So we should never change cards to improve the game unless they enable > overpowered deck types? What if instead of enabling overpowered types > they stifle otherwise reasonable strategies into oblivion? Is this the case with VC? Will you be unable to play Nos Vote because VC exists, and you cannot use it? Or maybe I'm not following you... Anyway, the point is, if a deck archetype is not overpowered, than trimming a powerful card it relies on might weaken it, and make it less competitive against other archetypes that are using other sets of cards. Pretty general point, but I think it holds - I'd be happy to have Bowl of Abuse banned, because not only is it overpowered, it is strengthening one of the strongest archetypes (if not the strongest). >> Which is not the case. In fact, even with VC, fattie PRE Vote decks in >> general are only the third or fourth best play (behind walls, weenies >> and maybe powerbleed). >> >> If I'm looking at the statement that VC negates political card blood >> and pool costs, I'm also not fully there. > > Pool costs not so much - because there's a hard cap on the amount of > pool you can gain with VC, so when you're stuck with a net gain of 1 > pool instead of 2 it matters. But blood costs are pretty much a joke, > because it's not terribly hard in a PRE deck to make a vote pass by > ridiculous margins (once it gets to the floor). Which is a fair point. Still, I kinda feel that setting your deck up for overkill vote passing is a cost in itself. >> It might >> be considered to try to balance votes, like with Vox Senis, except in >> a more play-worthy way, giving more votes to players who don't want >> to focus their decks on politics, and making it more balanced. > > There's been a number of cards in recent sets (Irregular Protocol, > Confusion of the Eye) that seem to be addressing some of these things. > Most of them are viewed as substandard replacements for Delaying > Tactics/DI, and I'm pretty sure we don't need anything *better* than > Delaying Tactics to stop it. I'm not so much talking about anti-vote cards. I'm more talking about ways to balance the number of votes accross the tables. That's why I quoted Vox Senis - because one of its uses is to give every player a vote. Not powerful, I agree, but definitely along the lines I'm thinking. > If we *are* going to see cards added to the game just to give players > more votes to cut back on Voter Captivations with (and then expect > people to play with these cards specifically to cut down on Voter > Captivations so that political cards with blood costs actually > matter), doesn't that suggest that VC should be changed instead? Not really. Balancing votes a bit more, making it harder to get vote lock, would IMHO make the game generally better. VC is just a symptom of how evil vote lock can be in the right deck. >> Plus, if VC gets trimmed, and PTO stays, I'll be pretty pissed at how >> design team fixes something that is giving them inconvenience instead >> of >> fixing something that regularly pisses off half of the player base. :) > > That's probably an overstatement, but the point may hold. Which part? The one that says I'd be pretty pissed? :) -- Regards, Daneel

On Mar 2, 9:06 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I tend to think that voting is getting more difficult than easy. There are *LOTS* of titles out there these days. Number of Titled Camarilla/Sabbat Vampires by Group: Group 1: 41/116 = 35.3% Group 2: 84/184 = 45.7% Group 3: 50/148 = 33.8% Group 4: 46/145 = 31.7% Median Capacity for Titled Vampires by Group (too lazy to calculate averages, but they must be close) Group 1/2/3 Primogen: 9/6/8 Group 1/2/3 Princes: 7/9/8.5 Group 1/3 Justicars: 10/10 Group 2/3/4 Bishops: 7/8/7 (almost 6) Group 2/3/4 Archbishops:9/9/9 Group 2/3/4 Cardinals: 10/9/10 Kind of interesting that my numbers don't really bear out the hypothesis, but there must be a good explanation. Mainly, I think that vampires have been consistently designed for a while now and that leads to a proliferation of titles in the right places. Plus, people generally use titles because they don't want to be left out of the voting action. Jeff

Jeff Kuta wrote: > I tend to think that voting is getting more difficult than easy. There > are *LOTS* of titles out there these days. > > Number of Titled Camarilla/Sabbat Vampires by Group: > Group 1: 41/116 = 35.3% > Group 2: 84/184 = 45.7% > Group 3: 50/148 = 33.8% > Group 4: 46/145 = 31.7% Note that percentages tell almost nothing -- add 1000 Caitiff and voting doesn't get any harder, although the percentages drop dramatically. Should probably be investigating "best 12 card crypt" or somesuch, rather than percentages.

To fail a referendum is not difficult, normally table votes against it if it woud affect them. If you put a stake, they normally does not think about what should happen if it happens. They should only say no!.